Isaiah 7:14 and the Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus

Post Reply New Topic

This is the fourth in our series of debates concerning alleged Old Testament prophecies that Jesus is purported to have fulfilled concerning the requirements in a Jewish Messiah.

It all started here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt152497.html

So far, I think that we are running Christians zero, Jews and Atheists 3:

1. Genesis 49:10 did not concern Jesus

2. Conflicting reports as to whether Jesus' stepfather was a descendent of Solomon. However, whether Jesus' stepfather was or was not a descendent of David, this had nothing to do with the ancestry of Jesus himself.

3. It is not clear that Micah is refering specifically to Jesus, who might or might not have been born in Bethlehem.

However, the above 3 points are only tangential to Christianity itself. If you buy them or don't buy them, no big deal.

Now, we are getting to a subject that is of fundamental importance to the religion: whether Isaiah 7:14 accurately predicted that Jesus' mama was going to be a virgin. If you aren't convinced that this is true, then you might as well find something else to do on a Sunday morning.

I know that some of us have already flogged this horse to death. If you have previously participated in similar debates, then you are welcome to come and stomp on this dead horse some more. If you have a fresh perspective, then all the better.

Here we go:

Isaiah 7:14 reads:

Isaiah was prophesying the birth of Hezekiah, by a maiden/virgin, as a sign to Ahaz.
Isaiah was prophesying the birth of the Messiah, by a virgin/maiden, as a sign to Israel.

It's a both/and. Matthew would have known the first part; didn't stop him putting forward the second part.

I HATE to say this - but then I know you will not let reality spoil your fun in the sandbox building castles to smash.

The virgin birth is NOT foundational.

Yes, "born of the Virgin Mary" is in the creed and I am solid on that, but in the base language the term is flexible.

But what is foundational is Jesus as son of God, Jesus as Messiah - Christ, Anointed one to you, as you will, and Jesus dead and risen.

So, as you will:

A virgin birth was predicted, Mary was it. Fine by Christians.

A virgin birth was predicted, Mary was either NOT virgin or not the right virgin. Fine by Christians.

No virgin birth was predicted but Mary gave us one anyway. Fine by Christians.

No virgin birth was predicted and Mary did not give us one. Fine by Christians.


If you want to rationalize why you are not Christian - why bother? I did not need an excuse in the day.

If you want to stop others from becoming Christian, big deal - if arguments will keep them out, they are not ripe for coming in, better they should stay out and grow.

If you want to talk Christians out of it - talk your lungs out. A Christian who will pull out for thst kind of argument is not really ripe either.

PL - Semantics maybe, but would you say there is a difference of kind between 'signs' and miracles/prophecies? Miracles are all over the Bible, 'signs' (so described) are rather fewer.

I'll trust Matthew to know his own culture's customs, which evidently were such that 'you shall call his name Immanuel' can be a prophecy of someone from then on named Jesus. Same rule would have applied to Hezekiah, back in Isaiah's day.

(Imagine it, Israelites having naming customs which they didn't think to spell out for us.)

Very much so. Knocking down Jericho, or the sun standing still is one thing. The temple veil and the descent of the Spirit / Dove at the baptism are another.

Mind you, there is the school of thought that sees a lot of the straight miracles as "types and shadows" with prophetic implications. I can't go there myself - frankly, the level of reading in your interpretations required is too much like English 121 analyzing Ulysses. But it has ancient roots - look at the lifted seroent in John and the spiritual rock in 1 Corinthians.

But even there I think you need the distinction.

Two examples of very minor personal miracles. Not requiring big bending of natural law, but big effects for me. These both involve finding money, as it happens, making them as like as may be.

I am wandering one snowy day in a strange town. Plodding along, I see a wallet on the sidewalk. I pick it up. As is my wont, I will find it and return it to the owner.

Surprise - it was mine. I didn't even realize I had lost it.

That I put with Jericho - a very practical if small present-focussed miracle.

However, I have found for years, if I am faced with a decision, very often I will find a coin on the ground just as I am deciding on one option. It comes with a sense of confirmation.

The most I ever found was a $20 bill, filling up with gas halfway through a trip running around househunting. The town in which I found it - was where a month later we bought.

Those are minor and personal but very gratefully received signs.

Jesus and some OT prophets in several cases make it explicit they are perfoiming a sign.

They were both Jews speaking to/writing for Jewish audiences. 'We' weren't in their picture at all. Anyway, don't we have the idea of nicknames - or honorifics, for something a bit grander - too?

For that, go here and skip down to 'Christian usage'. Research from there.

Otherwise? Yo estoy no 'grand theologian', sola una 'B.A.', pero...my take on it? It's less intended as a proper name than as an honorific or title; a reminder of the sign (or reality). Much as we call Jesus 'Christ', signifying who He is - but that is no part of his "legal" name either.

Pairing up the meanings of the names is fun exercise, though. At least if you like turning over rocks just to see.

Hezekiah ---->'God gives strength'
Immanuel ---> 'God with us'
Jesus -------> 'God saves'

It's by God being with us that either is possible; and the difference between a mere sign of His presence (Hezekiah) and the reality of His presence (Jesus) is the difference between 'strength' and 'salvation'.

Ah, what would Internet debates be without Google and Wikipedia?

Here is all of Isaiah 7