[Tj3]

When read in context(that is to read from beginning to end) you would find that the "sign" was for Ahaz not to be concerned about problems he was facing at That time. Now how could a birth 700 or 800 years later be a sign for Ahaz who is long since been dead?

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign for himself, and if you read the whole context, you will see that it is a future prophecy, referring to events in a future "day". Many prophetic announces in scripture take an exten ded period to fulfill. Read Hebrews 11 and read about those who stepped out in faith, and the promise was a future promise which, in many case, they they themselves would not see.

Another problem with that scripture is the mistranslation of the word almah which means young woman not virgin.

That makes no sense at all. How would a young woman giving birth be a sign. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, young women giving birth is pretty much the norm.

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)

The third problem with that scripture is that no where in the NT is Jesus called Immanuel.

Matt 1:22-25
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
NKJV

Now we know that Jesus was referred to as God being with us because of severla passages, not the least of which is 1 Tim 3:16 which tells us that He was God manifested in the flesh:

1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
NKJV

Further, do you know the origins of the name "Jesus" (or more properly Yeshuah)? It is found in the Old Testament, for example in Is 12:2

Isa 12:2
2 Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
'For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and song;
He also has become my salvation.'"
NKJV

Let's show where the name of Jesus appears here:

Isa 12:2
2 Behold, God is my Yeshuah,
I will trust and not be afraid;
'For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and song;
He also has become my Yeshuah.'"
NKJV

[Onan]

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign for himself,

Isiah gave him one anyway. Which is why the story continues. If he hadn't there would have been no more story to write. As we know there was still plenty.

and if you read the whole context, you will see that it is a future prophecy, referring to events in a future "day". Many prophetic announces in scripture take an exten ded period to fulfill.

Please read the whole story!! Have you ever read the very next chapter? Have you ever read the part about the prophetess giving birth to the son that was just talked about in the previous chapter? You will see if you READ that most stories are started and completed in the OT. None of it has anything to do with the NT.

That makes no sense at all. How would a young woman giving birth be a sign

That is exactly my point!! It had nothing to do with a supernatural demi god being born(hell the OT does everything it can to warn the Jews from this very concept) and the "sign" wasn't even upheld because Ahaz had plenty to worry about. Failed prophesy was pretty much the norm back then though so I really don't find this too surprising.

Matt 1:22-25
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
NKJV

All you have shown here is the writer of Matt. Quoting a passage from Isiah, no one actually called him Immanuel.

The rest of your Jesus bit I will just leave alone because the Christian Jesus is hardly the only Jesus ever written about. Hell Josephus wrote about 16 of them. It was a common name used back then from OT times with Joshua, Joseph, Jesus, it's all the same thing which is further proof that the NT is just further rehashment of older myths and beliefs.

Yeshuah = Joshua= Jesus, nothing new here I am full aware or the origin of the name.

[Tj3]

Isiah gave him one anyway. Which is why the story continues. If he hadn't there would have been no more story to write. As we know there was still plenty.

Actually God gave him one through Isaiah, but don't stop there - read the whole prophecy - see what it says!

Please read the whole story!! Have you ever read the very next chapter? Have you ever read the part about the prophetess giving birth to the son that was just talked about in the previous chapter? You will see if you READ that most stories are started and completed in the OT. None of it has anything to do with the NT.

I read the next chapter, as well as the whole book.

That is exactly my point!! It had nothing to do with a supernatural demi god being born(hell the OT does everything it can to warn the Jews from this very concept) and the "sign" wasn't even upheld because Ahaz had plenty to worry about. Failed prophesy was pretty much the norm back then though so I really don't find this too surprising.

Except that you are ignoring the fact that it does not mean "young woman". I notice that you ignored what the Hebrew scholar says that it means in favour of what you want it to mean.

All you have shown here is the writer of Matt. Quoting a passage from Isiah, no one actually called him Immanuel.

Did you read the rest of what I said?

The rest of your Jesus bit I will just leave alone because the Christian Jesus is hardly the only Jesus ever written about. Hell Josephus wrote about 16 of them. It was a common name used back then from OT times with Joshua, Joseph, Jesus, it's all the same thing which is further proof that the NT is just further rehashment of older myths and beliefs.

Your point is? Yes it was a common name, but we are talking about one specific person, and the prophecies in the OT point to this one specific person.

Yeshuah = Joshua= Jesus, nothing new here I am full aware or the origin of the name.

If you were, you would know that Joshua, though related, is not the same.

It seems that your response here is just to deny everything.

[Galveston1]

A short lesson in studying prophecies. A prophecy may be tucked away next to something seemingly unrelated.
Luke 4:17-21
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
(KJV)
Jesus read this far and announced the fulfillment of it. Now look further at what followed in the scroll:

Isa 61:1-2
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
(KJV)
Jesus stopped reading in mid-sentence because the day of vengeance was not due until later.
Now:

Isa 7:14-16
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
(KJV)
Verse 14 is a messianic prophecy but verse 16 had a fulfillment in the prophet's own son.
In the discourse in Mat. Ch 24, there are several prophecies given at the same time, but will be fulfilled each in its own time. The one of most interest to those present was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, their own danger in that situation along with the information that allowed them to escape. These things did indeed take place within the prophecied time frame. How can you call this a failed prophecy?


Luke 1:35
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost 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.
(KJV)

The Bible teaches all through it that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Like it or not!

[Onan]

Except that you are ignoring the fact that it does not mean "young woman". I notice that you ignored what the Hebrew scholar says that it means in favour of what you want it to mean.

I don't mean to be rude but that Hebrew scholar is pulling your leg. Have you read the actual hebrew version of it?

It translates like this.

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. The word used there is almah. This is known because in the very same book in chapter 62 verse 5 which reads like this,

For as a young man espouseth a virgin, so shall thy sons espouse thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

You see virgin is actually used and the word for that was bethulah.

So If the word was supposed to be virgin in chapter 7 why did they use a different version in ch. 62? The Hebrews had a word for virgin and it was not almah.

Please do not take my word for it, read the hebrew version for yourself. Look into this stuff for yourself. You will find there are many mistranslations.

That is why I will not except any passage from the NT claiming prophesy fulfillment as regard to Jesus. The Jews simply did not believe the Mesiah would be a demigod. They wrote more than once that the Mesiah would be a human and a military leader. He would be a descendant of David which Jesus clearly could not be if he was born of a virgin.

and the prophecies in the OT point to this one specific person.]

There is not one prophesy in the OT that points to the NT Jesus. Again as I have said the Jews simply did not believe in Demigods. If they chose to believe in Demigods there were plenty around that time they could have jumped on the bandwagon for. All through the OT you see the people of Isreal struggling with praying to other Gods and God warning them for doing so. Why would he change the rules later on?

Please do not think I am ignoring the rest of the stuff you posted, I'm just not sure where you are trying to go with it.

[Tj3]

I don't mean to be rude but that Hebrew scholar is pulling your leg. Have you read the actual hebrew version of it?

Heh heh heh - you don't know who that Hebrew scholar is, do you?

Before you answer, you should check out things like that.

There is not one prophesy in the OT that points to the NT Jesus.

Now I know that you have not studied the Bible.

[rosends]

heh heh heh - you don't know who that Hebrew scholar is, do you?

Before you answer, you should check out things like that.



Now I know that you have not studied the Bible.

I gues I have to ask... wh is that "Hebrew scholar" and is he a scholar of linguistics or of biblical Hebrew within a theological context which informed the language development?

As to the other "prophecies", I was recently referred to a page which listed hundreds of "messianic prophecies" which supposedly, jesus filled. Problem is many were generic (many people rode donkeys and were smart) and many, within the jewish tradition which predated Jesus, were not ever messianic prophecies. Some referred to a nation, some to other kings and some actually to previous events.

[Onan]

heh heh heh - you don't know who that Hebrew scholar is, do you?

I don't care who it is, I just showed you the Hebrew version. I just showed undeniable truth that you would see if you would take the time to read for yourself. It really makes no difference who this scholar is.

Now I know that you have not studied the Bible.

I just showed how there was proof of mistranslation of a key verse to christianity using actual translation from hebrew text and you tell me I have not studied the Bible?

This is really how your going to end this?

[Tj3]

I don't care who it is, I just showed you the Hebrew version. I just showed undeniable truth that you would see if you would take the time to read for yourself. It really makes no difference who this scholar is.

You showed me YOUR opinion.

Tell you what. Why don't you ask your local synagogue or Yeshiva who Rashi is, or do a quick check on internet. I see nothing that would suggest that your opinion should be considered above and beyond that of recognized Hebrew scholars.

[Onan]

You showed me YOUR opinion.

Tell you what. Why don't you ask your local synagogue or Yeshiva who Rashi is, or do a quick check on internet. I see nothing that would suggest that your opinion should be considered above and beyond that of recognized Hebrew scholars.

I just wrote you scripture from their own bible. Am I to believe I'm going to walk into a synagogue and they tell me differently? A Jew is going to tell me their Bible is Wrong?

Please, if you have something else to add to the debate by all means add to it, but do not insult me by saying a Jew is going to read from their Bible and tell me it means something totally different.

[Tj3]

I just wrote you scripture from their own bible. Am I to believe I'm going to walk into a synagogue and they tell me differently?? A Jew is going to tell me their Bible is Wrong??

Please, if you have something else to add to the debate by all means add to it, but do not insult me by saying a Jew is going to read from their Bible and tell me it means something totally different.

Check out who Rashi is and then you will understand why I am sitting here laughing as you try to tell me that you are a greater authority than he is in translating the Hberew scriptures.

Trust me - a simple search on internet, a phone call to any synagogue or Yeshiva will quickly tell you who he is.

[Onan]

Check out who Rashi is and then you will understand why I am sitting here laughing as you try to tell me that you are a greater authority than he is in translating the Hberew scriptures.

Trust me - a simple search on internet, a phone call to any synagogue or Yeshiva will quickly tell you who he is.

I don't care who Rashi is. I am not even trying to push my opinion. I simply typed exact hebrew scripture. It's all right there. Nothing made up. You can laugh all you want, please, laughter adds years to the life span (at least that's what they say)

I would like for you to please leave a link though of this guy claiming that almah meant virgin. If he had than it wouldn't be true that most Jews agree with him.

[Onan]

ROFL!!

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

This is straight from a Rashi site... would you like a link?

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi - Classic Texts

That's even better than the verse I showed for this one says the woman is already with child!!

ROFL!!

How was she pregnant for 800 years?. lol

Maybe you would have been better to leave it alone.

[Tj3]

I don't care who Rashi is. I am not even trying to push my opinion. I simply typed exact hebrew scripture. It's all right there. Nothing made up. You can laugh all you want, please, laughter adds years to the life span (at least thats what they say)

But all you have is your opinion.

[Tj3]

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is straight from a Rashi site.....would you like a link??

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi - Classic Texts

You may want to check out your link. It does not say what you think.

[Onan]

You may want to check out your link. It does not say what you think.

You mean it doesn't say what you want it to.

Follow the links man, it will be great reading for what the Jews and your Rashi believed.

[Tj3]

You mean it doesn't say what you want it to.

Follow the links man, it will be great reading for what the Jews and your Rashi believed.

Pregnant for 800 years - where is that link?

But hopefully by now you know who Rashi is, and hopefully you now understand that your interpretation of Hebrew is not beyond that of Rashi. Now perhaps it would be good to get into Hebrew translation. Let's get back to what I said which started this:

That makes no sense at all. How would a young woman giving birth be a sign. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, young women giving birth is pretty much the norm.

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).

[Onan]

Pregnant for 800 years - where is that link?

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

I just gave a link to this. You do realise that scripture was written about 700 years before the Jesus story supposedly took place right? So by the scripture above saying the woman is with child meaning already pregnant she would have had to been pregnant for about 800 years.

and hopefully you now understand that your interpretation of Hebrew is not beyond that of Rashi.

Yeah,, I just showed he believed the same thing. It is not my opinion man, it's what the Jews believe from what they read in their Bible. You do understand Judaism and Christianity are 2 different religions don't you? They do not read the English translation of the vulgate translation of the original Hebrew as do the Christians.

That makes no sense at all. How would a young woman giving birth be a sign. I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, young women giving birth is pretty much the norm.

Well you may find this hard to believe but I find most of what is in the Bible hard to believe, but maybe you should follow that link and read the text the way it was originally written. It may shed a little light on the situation.

The Great Scholar Rashi argued that Almah meant virgin

No he did not. No respected Scholar will tell you Almah meant virgin. I already showed you 2 different verses in the same book of the Bible that used the 2 different words. One was used as virgin and it was not almah. Again if you follow that link and do some reading you will just leave this alone.

[Tj3]

I just gave a link to this. You do realise that scripture was written about 700 years before the Jesus story supposedly took place right? So by the scripture above saying the woman is with child meaning already pregnant she would have had to been pregnant for about 800 years.

You are assuming that it does not mean, as the Bible says, Jesus. You are also assuming that the woman is not a virgin. Something that you have yet to prove. You may also want to note this comment in wikipedia:

"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)

Yeah,, I just showed he believed the same thing. It is not my opinion man, it's what the Jews believe from what they read in their Bible. You do understand Judaism and Christianity are 2 different religions don't you? They do not read the English translation of the vulgate translation of the original Hebrew as do the Christians.

You need to understand the difference between the meaning of the word in Hebrew and personal beliefs. I never said that the Jews would say that this referred to Jesus, but you were wrong in claiming that it does not say virgin.

Well you may find this hard to believe but I find most of what is in the Bible hard to believe, but maybe you should follow that link and read the text the way it was originally written. It may shed a little light on the situation.

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

No he did not.

So even when you are shopwn who he is and what he said, you refuse to accept it, and still place your Hebrew interpretation over the scholars. As long as you are unwilling to believe that you could be wrong, then there is little value in discussing the issue.

No respected Scholar will tell you Almah meant virgin.

I just showed you one and gave the reference.

And again, maybe where you live, a young woman giving birth would be a sign, but around here that is pretty much the norm. But a virgin giving birth is indeed a sign.

I trust that you also notice that in both reference to Rashi, that he stated that this verse speaks of God/Creator being with us.

[Onan]

T,

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

I don't know what else I have to show you.

Virgin Birth

"Therefore the L-rd will give you a sign. Behold the young woman (almah) is pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14)."

For two thousand years Jews have viewed the Virgin Birth myth as an oddity. The New Testament reading of Isaiah 7:14 is such a blatant mistranslation and is so wrenched from context that Jews have assured themselves that they do not need missionaries to understand their own Bible.

The Jewish rejection of "virgin birth" is based on at least ten reasons:

1) Betulah definitely means "virgin" (see Leviticus 21:14- the High Priest can marry only a virgin; Deuteronomy 22:14- a groom claims he did not find betulim, signs of virginity, in his bride). Isaiah 7:14 does not use the word betulah.

2) Almah, mentioned in Isaiah 7:14, means "young woman." It does not mean virgin (Proverbs 30:18-20 speaks of an adulterous almah!).

3) Christian claim support based on the Greek translation. In fact the Greek word for almah (Parthenos) is used to describe Dinah after she was raped (Genesis 34:2-4)!

4) Five times does Isaiah say the word betulah, but not in 7:14, which supposedly speaks of a virgin birth (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5)!

5) Context: King Achaz is worried that he will suffer defeat by two foreign kings (7:2). Isaiah reassures the king that a woman will give birth to Immanuel (the name means: G-d is with us) . The birth of Immanuel is a "sign" of G-d's rescue (7:14-17).

Achaz will not be reassured by a "sign" that Jesus will be born centuries later. He needs G-d's salvation now.

6) Ha-almah does not mean a young woman but the young woman: someone known to Isaiah and Achaz.

7) Isaiah 7:16 says that Achaz's enemy kings will fall before the son grows up- not in Jesus' time. This prophecy was fulfilled (II Kings 16:5-9, 15:29-30).

8) 7:16 says that while the son is growing up he will "not know to reject bad and choose good." How can this refer to a divine being?

9) 7:16 says of the son, "he will eat cream and honey" (enjoy prosperity-see 7:22). When did Jesus eat cream and honey?

10) A "sign" must be visible e.g. a rainbow (Genesis 9:13). Mary's alleged virginity was not visible to anyone. Isaiah 8:18 says that children are a "sign" for that is visible.

The evidence against the Christian myth is overwhelming, yet Michael Brown persists in justifying this myth (see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 pp.17-32 ). We do not fault him for offering unconvincing apologetics, for it is a hopeless task.

Brown maintains that both betulah and almah are ambiguous, so either can be used for virgin or non-virgin. Therefore usage of almah in 7:14, maintains Brown, is no reason to reject the virgin birth. This a dim view of the Hebrew language that Isaiah can use no term to clearly mean virgin when that is supposedly his entire point.

He cites a few verses that mention betulah although the issue is not virginity per se. Isaiah 23:4 says, "I have never labored, never given birth, never raised young men or virgins." Ezekiel 9:6 speaks as: "slay to death old man, young man, virgin, young children and women." The word "virgin" is used, but the point is "young woman."

On this basis, Brown argues that betulah does not necessarily mean virgin. This is completely false. That "virgin" is a Biblical expression for unmarried woman does not detract from the literal meaning. In Biblical thought unmarried women are expected to be virgins.

Logically, Brown must at least show that betulah can mean a non-virgin. Rebecca is described in Genesis 24:16 as, "a betulah, whom no man had known." Brown argues that if betulah clearly means virgin, the rest of the phrase is superfluous. Even if we disregard that parallel expressions are common in Scripture, Brown provides no reason to reject the traditional view that the double expression is meant to include other types of physical intimacy.

Job pledges "not to look lustfully at a betulah" (31:1). Brown thinks that since Job has no way of knowing who is a virgin, he cannot mean virgin. When we reiterate that virgin is a Biblical convention for unmarried woman, Brown's point is moot.

Isaiah metaphorically refers to Babylon as a betulah (47:1) and warns Babylon against a false sense of security. Babylon believes, "I shall not become a widow, or know loss of children" (47:8). What could be better for Brown than a betulah who is widowed and missing her children? He ignores that (1) there is greater fluidity with metaphorical than literal descriptions, (2) Isaiah is referring to Babylon in the present while Babylon is referring to herself in the future.

Finally we come to a verse where betulah and widowhood are explicitly linked: "Lament- like a betulah dressed in sackcloth for the husband of her youth (Joel 1:8)." Here Brown violates a basic rule of interpretation: Scripture in the light interprets Scipture in the dark. Theoretically this verse could be speaking, metaphorically, of a betrothed virgin or a consummated woman (in ancient Jewish culture betrothal and consummation were months apart). Scripture elsewhere mentions betulah in full clarity and so reveals Joel's intention: a betrothed virgin.

Even if there would be a verse where betulah means non-virgin or a verse where almah means virgin, betulah is certainly a clearer expression of virginity. If Isaiah wanted to make a point that a birth would be virginal, undoubtedly he would have not have said almah.

What of the objection that Isaiah is in context clearly speaking of a woman in his time- centuries before Mary? Brown claims that there is "no record of fulfillment" (no verse says "and so Immanuel was born"). In fact, there is no need for any "record of fulfillment." If Isaiah says he will be born in the contemporary generation, and he clearly does say this (7:16), Immanuel is not Jesus.

Let us look at 7:16 in full: "For before the child will know to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be deserted." Achaz dreads the two kings of Israel and Aram, but these kings will be defeated before Immanuel grows up.

The evidence against the New Testament is so overwhelming that Brown makes a telling concession. He admits that Immanuel was born in Isaiah's time but claims, like other missionaries, that 7:16 is a dual prophecy. In other words, there are two Immanuels: the real Immanuel and Jesus.

This is totally preposterous. Isaiah gives no indication whatsoever that this is a dual prophecy (indeed dual prophecy is unbiblical). The story surrounding Immanuel's conception has no resemblance to the Nativity of Jesus. What two kings suffered a downfall because of Jesus? Do Christians believe there was a virgin birth in Isaiah's time, in addition to Jesus?! This explanation is nothing but a desperate attempt to hide from an obvious disproof. Dual prophecy is as baseless as triple or quadruple prophecy.

Finally, the frequency of virgin births in pagan mythology raises great suspicion that the New Testament myth is of pagan, not Biblical origin.

Summary: Betulah definitely means virgin, and Isaiah certainly would have used this word had he spoken of a virgin birth. Immanuel is obviously born in Isaiah's time, and the deliverance his name represents (G-d is with us) was predicted to be fulfilled, and was fulfilled, in those days. Mary has no more to do with Immanuel than does the mother of Elvis Presley.

Note: some of the ideas in this essay are taken from Tovia Singer's Let's Get Biblical