Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi,

A simple observation concerning the virgin Mary.

Luke 1:28. 'And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women."

30. 'The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God."

If Mary had not been a virgin she would not have been highly favored with God, would she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Mary had not been a virgin she would not have been highly favored with God, would she?

How strange for a Christian to say that !

Mary was a perfect model of virtue. God favoured her because of her merit, not a circumstance of her life, such as virginity. She would have been as dear to God even if she had been married and therefore a non-virgin.

Very strange coming from a Christian !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

A simple observation concerning the virgin Mary.

Luke 1:28. 'And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women."

30. 'The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God."

If Mary had not been a virgin she would not have been highly favored with God, would she?

Baqar has already said this, but a great many people -- men and women, young and old, virgin and married, have been favored by G-d. What seems to matter most to G-d is that we do His will and we walk in His ways.

What was strange for me, when I was very young, was the respect my religious beliefs were shown from others who likewise feared G-d, even though they were of other faith traditions.

What I have learned is that when someone fears G-d, follows G-d's will, walks in G-d's way, and they meet someone else who does likewise, we have a way of recognizing each other. The talk turns from what doctrine we embrace, or what sect we belong to, or even what religion we our, to our relationship with G-d, our desire to do as G-d wishes, and our longing to learn more about G-d.

What I have also learned is that when someone wishes to place themself above G-d, they start by telling others how right they are about G-d. The focus of their discussion ceases to be about the will of G-d, but about their doctrine, their sect, their religion, and even to some extent, their writers or their prophets. They do not study the Torah, Christian Bible, or Qur'an to learn about the will of G-d, or to do the will of G-d, but to prove themselves right, and the other wrong.

In my tradition, which is Judaism, we had two great sages -- Shammai and Hillel. They were famous for their debates, and you can read about the two of them by using Google. Neither lifted themselves up at the expense of the other. Always the discussion and debate was about better understanding Torah and the will of G-d. This is how it should be -- when we come together, we should talk about G-d, not about how we think my god can beat up your god, like G-d needs us to speak ill of each other in order to glorify him. G-d can figure out who's who, He doesn't need us doing it for Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello Ariella

Uh, the shoresh means "vigor", along with "youth".

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Lying doesn't make it true.

the evidence speak for itself the youth is unmarried and therefore remains a virgin according to the tanach and jewish sources which I have spoken with there is no denying this.

both muslims and christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as far as I know and the word used in Isaiah almah no matter what the male word is, was always used to describe an unmarried young woman.

theres no lying in this.

What about Judah and Tamar? Not only were Judah and Tamar NOT married, but Tamar was forbidden to him.

Here's the bit about Judah and Tamar --

http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/24_tamar.htm

It's worth reading. It also disproves your assertion.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

I will go to my jewish sources about Judah and Tamar thanks for giving me these links I will take a look at them and I will respond back.

Uh, Hezekiah was the king Isaiah was talking about. Ahaz, the father, was evil. Hezekiah was not.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

i was talking about Hezekiah's son I heard he was a horrible king who made the israelites worship idols I may be wrong though.

Not, but Hezekiah restoring the proper worship of G-d served to fulfill the prophecy.

the only thing mentioned was that at the time the unmarried young maiden gives birth the threatening kings would be gone as far as I know.

can you show me the restoring ? I would greatly appreciate.

Since Judah lived before Isaiah, I'd say you're wrong.

But here's a Jewish source that disagrees --

the article you quoted is the same thing you been saying to me and I have answered.

yet you have yet to find an almah which is married.

you have not answered me about the words used for the sign DEPTHS AND HEIGHTS ABOVE and about Ahaz refusing to ask for a sign because in doing so he would be tempting God.

Having just presented a respected Jewish source (Drazin has done incredible anti-Missionary work, and is widely regarded as an authority on such things), I'd say it's not "all". Additionally, these verses are widely discussed in Jewish circles as intentional mistranslations of the Hebrew text. How about you get that Jewish source to come here so we can investigate their credentials and determine if they are actually Jewish sources, and not missionary sources?

I can find articles in the contrary even from wikipedia.

Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bibl...oung-Woman.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/almah.html

www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00ClZ9 - 9k -

if you want i'll show you some more from jewish sources.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baqar,

QUOTE(placid @ Aug 11 2007, 09:03 PM)

If Mary had not been a virgin she would not have been highly favored with God, would she?

How strange for a Christian to say that !

Mary was a perfect model of virtue. God favoured her because of her merit, not a circumstance of her life, such as virginity. She would have been as dear to God even if she had been married and therefore a non-virgin.

Very strange coming from a Christian !

--- It is not written in Scripture but I have read that among the Essenes who were the more discerning people of the day, that mothers would teach their daughters to be chaste and honorable before God because of the prophecy that one day, "A virgin will conceive, and bear a Son and shall call His name Immanuel."

If this was taught, then they would be aware of the possibility of being chosen of God to have a special Son.

If you read Luke 1:26-38, you have the setting which is verified in the Quran

You say, --- 'Mary was a perfect model of virtue.'--- would she have been a perfect model of virtue if she had not been a virgin? --- Was that not her important virtue?

In Surah 21:91, it begins with "And she who was chaste"

And in 66:12, 'And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste.'

Mary was surprised with the greeting in Luke 1:29, but not surprised at the possibility.

34. Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be since I do not know a man?"

--- This is the part that Jews and Muslims have trouble with, which was spoken by the Angel Gabriel.

Was Gabriel not the most prominent archangel, --- that came from the presence of God?

He is named in the OT. He is understood to be the messenger from God to Muhammad in the Quran.

Here is what he said to Mary:

35. "The HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST will overshadow you; therefore, also, THAT HOLY ONE who is to be born WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD."

The same Gabriel from the OT and the Quran said that this would happen to Mary, and Mary was not flabbergasted, as most people would be, --- but, almost as though she was prepared, said,

38. "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word."

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can do the same for you even from wikipedia.

Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin

Is there a reason you stopped?

Here's the complete text --

Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14.

The Wikipedia entry continues:

The masculine root of almah is elem ("עלם") meaning "youth" or "young man of the age of puberty".[1] Feminizing these terms would result in "young woman" or "young woman of the age of puberty", but the actual definition is: "girl of marriageable age". [2] This sense of the word continues to the modern Hebrew where almah still means "damsel" (a young woman or girl) and "miss" (a young or unmarried woman).[3]

Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman[4] and children born to an almah would be illegitimate.[5] The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means "an unmarried girl (especially a virgin)".[6] As with "maid", the word almah does not certainly mean "virgin" but, in cultural context, it would be abnormal for an almah to be anything other than a virgin. [7]

and if you want i'll show you some more from jewish sources.

I'd like to see actual Jewish sources, for a change.

but I prefer we leave the copy and paste of sites out of this discussion :)

I'd like to see truthful posts for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason you stopped?

Here's the complete text --

I just stopped because I already showed my evidence from what I pasted from wikipedia, the rest actually confirm my point.

The masculine root of almah is elem ("עלם") meaning "youth" or "young man of the age of puberty".[1] Feminizing these terms would result in "young woman" or "young woman of the age of puberty", but the actual definition is: "girl of marriageable age". [2] This sense of the word continues to the modern Hebrew where almah still means "damsel" (a young woman or girl) and "miss" (a young or unmarried woman).[3]

Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman[4] and children born to an almah would be illegitimate.[5] The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means "an unmarried girl (especially a virgin)".[6] As with "maid", the word almah does not certainly mean "virgin" but, in cultural context, it would be abnormal for an almah to be anything other than a virgin. [7]

just my observation, but I don't think it helped your cause showing the rest.

I'd like to see actual Jewish sources, for a change

I have actually shown you the Solomon Mandelkern, Konkordantziah laTanach or Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae, Tel Aviv, 1978 which is a jewish source.

also this site

http://www.heartofisrael.net/chazak/articles/almah.html

which says this.

translates "'almah" as "a young woman of marriageable age." Baab (787) suggests that it might be translated as "be mature sexually." Likewise, Creager (341) notes that etymologically speaking "the basic meaning was "a sexually mature female."" The combined effect of all these translations is to lead one to the full meaning of the word "'almah": "young woman of marriageable age who is sexually mature who is not already married."

any jew would tell you an almah is sexually mature but not married yet, if they are not married then they have not had any sexual relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Heart of Israel" is a Christain Missionary website. They are NOT "Jewish".

If you're basing Judaism on Christian Missionaries, no wonder you're confused!

oh ok I did a google search to try to find a jewish link and that showed up I will keep looking, that was my mistake.

it's hard to find jewish links but I can asure you as you know no jewish source can say an almah is married jewish sources all say an almah is an unmarried young maiden protected by her family.

I also don't use christian missionaries I try to find the most common use by any religion I even use wikipedia which as far as I know are neutral, I have even asked jewish sources who are anti-christian.

I don't see a difference in missionaries in your eyes and jewish anti-christianity in my eyes but anyways I still proceded to ask anti-christian jews about sex before marriage and they all agree that it was forbidden they have confirmed me that an unmarried woman never had any sexual relations until they are married.

the overwhelming evidence is just too much and show almah in the cultural context was known to be a virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh ok I did a google search to try to find a jewish link and that showed up I will keep looking, that was my mistake.

it's hard to find jewish links but I can asure you as you know no jewish source can say an almah is married jewish sources all say an almah is an unmarried young maiden protected by her family.

There's a difference between "married" and "a virgin". Even under Jewish law, there is a difference between a young girl who was a virgin until she was married, and one who was not. If you read the Mishnah -- which is about 2,000 years old -- it describes the dowry for a bride who was, and who wasn't, a virgin. For a virgin, the dowry was 200 zuz, for a non-virgin, it was 100.

But it gets more involved than that.

If a woman who was not born an Israelite, and did not become a Jew (such as by conversion) prior to her third birthday, it is assumed that she is not a virgin. She remains an "almah", because "almah" just means "young (female)", but she is not a "bethulah" "separated (female)". There is an entire section of law in the Mishnah and Talmud, all based on Torah law, dealing with what happens when a girl is not a virgin, when a girl is presumed to be a virgin but isn't, when a girl is a virgin but falsely accused of being not a virgin, and when a girl is not a virgin but claims to have been and wasn't.

This has been settled Jewish law -- the difference in dowries between young women who remained chaste, and young women who did not -- for over 3,000 years.

I also don't use christian missionaries I try to find the most common use by any religion I even use wikipedia which as far as I know are neutral, I have even asked jewish sources who are anti-christian.

There are nearly 7 billion people on this planet, and only 15 to 18 million Jews. The odds that you're just going to find a Jewish website, if you go looking at random, is not very good. Additionally, "neutral" is NOT a Jewish perspective. "Neutral" includes both Jewish and non-Jewish perspectives. If you want a Jewish perspective, you have to go to Jews. If you want to do some research, I'd suggest http://www.chabad.org . Here are some links --

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108400

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63562

Note -- I'm not Chabad, or even Orthodox. I'm Conservative (Masorti).

I don't see a difference in missionaries in your eyes and jewish anti-christianity in my eyes but anyways I still proceded to ask anti-christian jews about sex before marriage and they all agree that it was forbidden they have confirmed me that an unmarried woman never had any sexual relations until they are married.

Then I suggest you learn about Judah and Tamar.

In the story of Judah and Tamar, Tamar married one of Judah's sons. Long story short, the son died, and then Judah's second son (Onan, for anyone who cares) married her, but refused to give her children. So, G-d killed Onan. Judah then refused to give Tamar his third son in marriage, as he was obligated to do, because he assumed his sons' deaths were Tamar's fault. Tamar took matters into her own hands, and pretended to be a prostitute. Judah met her, assuming she was a prostitute, and offered to pay her a kid from his flock, to have sexual relations with her. Judah gave her property in trust (his staff and seal, as I recall), but when Judah's servant took the kid to her to redeem Judah's pledge, she was not there. She became pregnant. Three months later, when it was obvious that Tamar was pregnant, the matter came to a head, and Tamar said that the father of the child was the one to whom those items belonged. Judah then married her, but put her away since she was forbidden to him on account of she had been the wife of his son.

Jews aren't perfect, and we don't claim to be perfect. That a young woman might not be a virgin wouldn't have been unheard of. Certainly it is not the ideal, but we're not perfect.

the overwhelming evidence is just too much and show almah in the cultural context was known to be a virgin.

No, the "should" is that an unmarried Israelite girl would be a virgin. That's "should". However, that's not "was" or "always will be". Christians shouldn't sin, Muslims shouldn't eat pork, and Jews shouldn't have a bacon cheeseburger while smoking a cigarette in the bathroom on Yom Kippur. But that doesn't mean that these things don't happen, or didn't happen, or never will ever again happen.

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a difference between "married" and "a virgin". Even under Jewish law, there is a difference between a young girl who was a virgin until she was married, and one who was not. If you read the Mishnah -- which is about 2,000 years old -- it describes the dowry for a bride who was, and who wasn't, a virgin. For a virgin, the dowry was 200 zuz, for a non-virgin, it was 100.

But it gets more involved than that.

If a woman who was not born an Israelite, and did not become a Jew (such as by conversion) prior to her third birthday, it is assumed that she is not a virgin. She remains an "almah",

because "almah" just means "young (female)", but she is not a "bethulah" "separated (female)". There is an entire section of law in the Mishnah and Talmud, all based on Torah law, dealing with what happens when a girl is not a virgin, when a girl is presumed to be a virgin but isn't, when a girl is a virgin but falsely accused of being not a virgin, and when a girl is not a virgin but claims to have been and wasn't.

This has been settled Jewish law -- the difference in dowries between young women who remained chaste, and young women who did not -- for over 3,000 years.

yes almah just means young female who by my jewish sources is unmarried and therefore remains chaste as the custom was back them.

There are nearly 7 billion people on this planet, and only 15 to 18 million Jews. The odds that you're just going to find a Jewish website, if you go looking at random, is not very good. Additionally, "neutral" is NOT a Jewish perspective. "Neutral" includes both Jewish and non-Jewish perspectives. If you want a Jewish perspective, you have to go to Jews. If you want to do some research, I'd suggest http://www.chabad.org . Here are some links --

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108400

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63562

Note -- I'm not Chabad, or even Orthodox. I'm Conservative (Masorti).

thanks Ariella I will certainly read this. I see that they don't quote tanach it would have been good if they quoted tanach.

Then I suggest you learn about Judah and Tamar.

In the story of Judah and Tamar, Tamar married one of Judah's sons. Long story short, the son died, and then Judah's second son (Onan, for anyone who cares) married her, but refused to give her children. So, G-d killed Onan. Judah then refused to give Tamar his third son in marriage, as he was obligated to do, because he assumed his sons' deaths were Tamar's fault. Tamar took matters into her own hands, and pretended to be a prostitute. Judah met her, assuming she was a prostitute, and offered to pay her a kid from his flock, to have sexual relations with her. Judah gave her property in trust (his staff and seal, as I recall), but when Judah's servant took the kid to her to redeem Judah's pledge, she was not there. She became pregnant. Three months later, when it was obvious that Tamar was pregnant, the matter came to a head, and Tamar said that the father of the child was the one to whom those items belonged. Judah then married her, but put her away since she was forbidden to him on account of she had been the wife of his son.

Jews aren't perfect, and we don't claim to be perfect. That a young woman might not be a virgin wouldn't have been unheard of. Certainly it is not the ideal, but we're not perfect.

is it ok if I give this quote to my jewish sources the verse where this is from is Genesis 38 right ?

in my observation of this, this was done in disobedience am I correct ? is Tamar ever called a almah or was she already of age ?

No, the "should" is that an unmarried Israelite girl would be a virgin. That's "should". However, that's not "was" or "always will be". Christians shouldn't sin, Muslims shouldn't eat pork, and Jews shouldn't have a bacon cheeseburger while smoking a cigarette in the bathroom on Yom Kippur. But that doesn't mean that these things don't happen, or didn't happen, or never will ever again happen.

yes it's possible that girls would disobey God and the jewish community and have sex before marriage, yet the custom was to be chaste until marriage and I believe when the Jews heard God say the sign was for an almah to give birth, they knew that that meant a young woman who is unmarried and still a virgin. I don't think they would be thinking on their mind that this girl which God is mentioning will disobey God.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the story of Judah and Tamar, Tamar married one of Judah's sons. Long story short, the son died, and then Judah's second son (Onan, for anyone who cares) married her, but refused to give her children. So, G-d killed Onan. Judah then refused to give Tamar his third son in marriage, as he was obligated to do, because he assumed his sons' deaths were Tamar's fault. Tamar took matters into her own hands, and pretended to be a prostitute. Judah met her, assuming she was a prostitute, and offered to pay her a kid from his flock, to have sexual relations with her. Judah gave her property in trust (his staff and seal, as I recall), but when Judah's servant took the kid to her to redeem Judah's pledge, she was not there. She became pregnant. Three months later, when it was obvious that Tamar was pregnant, the matter came to a head, and Tamar said that the father of the child was the one to whom those items belonged. Judah then married her, but put her away since she was forbidden to him on account of she had been the wife of his son.

Ariella with all due respect I don't know why you bring up Tamar and Judah Tamar is not mentioned as an almah and she was married to Judah's son, not being disrespectful but it doesn't make sense.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ariella with all due respect I don't know why you bring up Tamar and Judah Tamar is not mentioned as an almah and she was married to Judah's son, not being disrespectful but it doesn't make sense.

You've asserted that everyone did what was completely proper at that time. I hardly think that ones daughter-in-law playing the harlot to her father-in-law, so she could have a child within the tribe of Judah counts as "completely proper". And Judah wasn't just anybody, Judah became the head of one of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

And actually, Tamar was not married to any of Judah's sons at the time. Judah's son Onan sinned by refusing to father a child on behalf of his deceased older brother, and G-d killed Onan as a result, making Tamar a widow. So in that one instance there are a lot of examples of people not doing what G-d has said to do. To expect that all young women -- almahot -- are pure and virtuous, when I've given you a clear example of people who weren't exactly so pure and virtuous, is simply delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say, --- 'Mary was a perfect model of virtue.'--- would she have been a perfect model of virtue if she had not been a virgin? ---

Placid, my friend. I am disappointed at your use of those words and its implications. How can you possibly speak in terms of her not being a virgin ! If you had asked whether she would have been a perfect model if she was married, I could accept that. But to say what you did is simply beyond me.

Anyway, the answer to your question is 'yes'. She belonged to the exclusive club of of God's nearest and dearest. Her marital status has nothing to do with it.

Was that not her important virtue?

Not at all. Unlike modern times, there were virgins galore in those days. There was no shortage of virgins as there is in the immoral world of today. It looks like you are seeing her in the light of today's decrepit and unChristian life style.

The mother of Jesus was a paragon of virtue, she was far more virtuous in every sense of the word than minnows like you or me can ever comprehend.

How sad indeed the way you see the mother of Jesus !

Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be since I do not know a man?" This is the part that Jews and Muslims have trouble with.

I have no trouble with that statement. Any chaste unmarried woman would be surprised if a doctor told her that she was pregnant. Mary was expressing a natural surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baqar,

Sorry if I made a statement that seemed offensive to you.

However the last part of Post 55 related to what Gabriel said, not to what Mary asked.

Quote:

--- This is the part that Jews and Muslims have trouble with, which was spoken by the Angel Gabriel.

Was Gabriel not the most prominent archangel, --- that came from the presence of God?

He is named in the OT. He is understood to be the messenger from God to Muhammad in the Quran.

Here is what he said to Mary:

35. "The HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST will overshadow you; therefore, also, THAT HOLY ONE who is to be born WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD."

The same Gabriel from the OT and the Quran said that this would happen to Mary, and Mary was not flabbergasted, as most people would be, --- but, almost as though she was prepared, said,

38. "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baqar,

Quote:

--- This is the part that Jews and Muslims have trouble with,

That Gabriel said to Mary,

35. "The HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST will overshadow you; therefore, also, THAT HOLY ONE who is to be born WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD."

I was emphasizing that it was Gabriel who said that Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God.

I will be away for a few days,

Blessings on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Placid and Bagar,

Actually , Mary understood when : 3:45] (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

That the son has not a father .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've asserted that everyone did what was completely proper at that time. I hardly think that ones daughter-in-law playing the harlot to her father-in-law, so she could have a child within the tribe of Judah counts as "completely proper". And Judah wasn't just anybody, Judah became the head of one of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

NO, lol I defenitely know that people sinned and did what was evil in the sight of God, what I was trying to show was that it was the custom, it was what they were raised up to do, when and if they did wrong it would have been looked down upon by the community.

Now as far as I know there could have been an unmarried virgin who had sexual relations but it would have been rejected by the people and according to scriptures there is no record of it.

the point is, it was the custom for an unmarried young girl to remain chaste until marriage and I know the people of Isaiah's time had that in mind when God gave them that sign.

And actually, Tamar was not married to any of Judah's sons at the time. Judah's son Onan sinned by refusing to father a child on behalf of his deceased older brother, and G-d killed Onan as a result, making Tamar a widow. So in that one instance there are a lot of examples of people not doing what G-d has said to do. To expect that all young women -- almahot -- are pure and virtuous, when I've given you a clear example of people who weren't exactly so pure and virtuous, is simply delusional.

Tamar was married before and she was already a woman of age she in no way is an almah or mentioned as an almah.

To expect that all young women -- almahot -- are pure and virtuous, when I've given you a clear example of people who weren't exactly so pure and virtuous, is simply delusional

Tamar is not mentioned as an almah and wether almahs sinned or not by having sexual relations before marriage I have no proof according to scriptures, sure it could have happened, anythings possible, but the custom was for them to remain chaste, which is the custom little girls grew up with and the citizens would follow if they were true God fearing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tamar is not mentioned as an almah and wether almahs sinned or not by having sexual relations before marriage I have no proof according to scriptures, sure it could have happened, anythings possible, but the custom was for them to remain chaste, which is the custom little girls grew up with and the citizens would follow if they were true God fearing people.

Right, but she is a counter argument to "they all did what was right" argument you keep advancing. Your argument has been disproven, it would be nice if you'd just acknowledge that.

As for not being G-d fearing, Ya'akov tricked his father Yitzhack into giving him Esav's birthright because Esav was an ingrateful, unappreciative dolt who sold it for a bowl of soup. Jews don't claim to be perfect. Indeed, our imperfections are taken as learning experiences (I always side with Ya'akov when we study that text -- he bought the birthright fair and square, but his brother refused to honor his end of the bargain.) We don't pretend to be perfect, then wonder why the heck G-d has driven us out of our Land, sent us into Exile and generally made our lives miserable. We pick ourselves up, repent, turn back towards G-d, and get back with the business at hand.

The only reasons Christians are so adamant about this mistranslation is because it's the cornerstone of Christian theology. Well, guess what -- the Virgin Birth didn't even become Christian doctrine until well after Jesus was dead and buried. He's addressed several times as "the carpenter's son" and never does he say "Excuse me? It was a virgin birth for me." Both Matthew and Luke name Joseph as Jesus's father, even. The entire theology of Jesus being the Messiah hinges on Joseph being Jesus's father, even. The Virgin Birth is not only one of the greatest internal contradictions in Christianity, it's also one of the greatest external contradictions.

You've also not addressed my comments about Mishnah Ketubot, where the matter of dealing with those almahot who weren't virgins is discussed in great detail, and where the legal status of almahot who were not born batei yisrael are presumed, as a matter of settled Jewish law, to not be virgins.

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, but she is a counter argument to "they all did what was right" argument you keep advancing. Your argument has been disproven, it would be nice if you'd just acknowledge that.

I do believe jews did what was right or tried to do what was right, but as we all do many failed and did what was wrong, regardless. I know that jews are not perfect I never said they were.

the point i'm trying to make is it was custom for an unmarried young woman to remain chaste until the time of her marriage although jewish man and woman may have been disobedient and wrong and there may have been an almah which had sexual relations before marriage they're is no evidence of this according to scriptures.

As for not being G-d fearing, Ya'akov tricked his father Yitzhack into giving him Esav's birthright because Esav was an ingrateful, unappreciative dolt who sold it for a bowl of soup. Jews don't claim to be perfect. Indeed, our imperfections are taken as learning experiences (I always side with Ya'akov when we study that text -- he bought the birthright fair and square, but his brother refused to honor his end of the bargain.) We don't pretend to be perfect, then wonder why the heck G-d has driven us out of our Land, sent us into Exile and generally made our lives miserable. We pick ourselves up, repent, turn back towards G-d, and get back with the business at hand.

I know all about this yes jewish man/woman and prophets did commit sin, that does not take from the fact that when anyone would mention almah that meant a young unmarried jewish maiden which was known to be a virgin.

It's like if God were to say he would bring up a man who will not be a murderer, just because there are people who commit murder does not mean the man God will bring up will be one of them.

if God says an unmarried young maiden will have a child, God is not meaning this person will have sexual relations he is saying that this woman will be the equivalent of almah an unmarried young maiden who is a virgin.

The only reasons Christians are so adamant about this mistranslation is because it's the cornerstone of Christian theology. Well, guess what -- the Virgin Birth didn't even become Christian doctrine until well after Jesus was dead and buried. He's addressed several times as "the carpenter's son" and never does he say "Excuse me? It was a virgin birth for me." Both Matthew and Luke name Joseph as Jesus's father, even. The entire theology of Jesus being the Messiah hinges on Joseph being Jesus's father, even. The Virgin Birth is not only one of the greatest internal contradictions in Christianity, it's also one of the greatest external contradictions.

actualy no matter what you think of the septuagint it was a jewish translation before christianity which identified the almah as a virgin.

and all jewish text does say that an almah is a young woman which I don't deny but as scriptures and jewish sources has confirmed me all almahs where in fact young jewish woman of marriable age which in fact werent married.

and as sources state back in bc time it was the normal to not have sexual relations until marriage meaning the almah would in fact be a virgin as the case with rebekah and the rest of the almahs mentioned in the tanach, many of them where apointed to someone for future marriage but none were in fact married.

as far as what you stated about Jesus Father actually the NT says the Jesus is of the tribe of Judah through Mary.

You can go into your tanach to show that birth rights will only come through the Father and you will not find it, because I have seen the evidence Jews have brought and studied it. God in Genesis talks about counting birth rights through the Father only for the purpose of forming the Israeli army.

there is no clear cut scripture of God saying tribal affiliations can only come to the Father.

the virgin birth is one of the true miracles not contradictions, muslims also believe in this miracle.

I have proven to you from the sorrounding verses that the sign of the almah (unmarried young maiden) is in fact a miracle which would be given to the house of David, because of the way it is described a sign from the depths and heights above and from the way that this sign was to be, this sign was to be so far away from normal earthly signs that Ahaz refused to ask God for in doing so he would be tempting God.

I rest my case.

You've also not addressed my comments about Mishnah Ketubot, where the matter of dealing with those almahot who weren't virgins is discussed in great detail, and where the legal status of almahot who were not born batei yisrael are presumed, as a matter of settled Jewish law, to not be virgins.

can you please find scriptures of what you speak off so I can study it and respond back to you when I get the answers.

thank you.

Edited by tek91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the point i'm trying to make is it was custom for an unmarried young woman to remain chaste until the time of her marriage although jewish man and woman may have been disobedient and wrong and there may have been an almah which had sexual relations before marriage they're is no evidence of this according to scriptures.

Okay, reason and argument hasn't worked, let's try something else.

What word would you use for a young woman -- of marriagable age -- who was not a virgin? What's the Hebrew for "female youth"? Any clues? Any knowledge of Hebrew that would be applicable here?

You can go into your tanach to show that birth rights will only come through the Father and you will not find it, because I have seen the evidence Jews have brought and studied it. God in Genesis talks about counting birth rights through the Father only for the purpose of forming the Israeli army.

Tribes are tribes are tribes are tribes. There aren't different tribes for different purposes. This is just plain old settled Jewish law.

Maybe that's the problem -- you don't know what "settled Jewish law" means.

The tribal affiliation of someone has been fixed since before Moshe. The word that's used is "House of Xxxx", this is why we say things like "Beit David" or "Beit Judah" or "Beit Ahron". Because it is the House of David, or House of Judah, or House of Aaron haKohen. It was so thoroughly established that there is a passage in the Torah where three sisters, who had neither brothers nor husbands, and whose parents had passed away, were going to be completely disenfranchised. Moshe had to ask G-d what to do because the lands were given to the tribes through the male line.[/b]. That's how "settled" this was. For someone who's father was not a Jew (and G-d is not a Jew, just so you know), they are not a member of any tribe, and there's not a real rabbi on the planet who is going to disagree with that statement.

the virgin birth is one of the true miracles not contradictions, muslims also believe in this miracle.

Well, I'm not a Muslim, now, am I?

I have proven to you from the sorrounding verses that the sign of the almah (unmarried young maiden) is in fact a miracle which would be given to the house of David, because of the way it is described a sign from the depths and heights above and from the way that this sign was to be, this sign was to be so far away from normal earthly signs that Ahaz refused to ask God for in doing so he would be tempting God.

If, assuming for a moment, your assertion is correct, Jesus was not the fulfillment because Ahaz was long since dead and couldn't see the sign. Jesus also wasn't the fulfillment, because Jesus didn't fulfill any of the prophecies that are associated with that section of prophecy. Again, all you're doing at this point is cherry picking.

can you please find scriptures of what you speak off so I can study it and respond back to you when I get the answers.

I already have -- Mishnah Ketubot. Go forth and read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, reason and argument hasn't worked, let's try something else.

What word would you use for a young woman -- of marriagable age -- who was not a virgin? What's the Hebrew for "female youth"? Any clues? Any knowledge of Hebrew that would be applicable here?

if there was a young woman of marriable age she would be married in order to have intimate relations for that I would use either 'ishshah or ba'al.

there is no word for a young woman of marriable age who is not married having sexual relations as far as I know it was forbidden by the community and God as my jewish sources have told me.

Tribes are tribes are tribes are tribes. There aren't different tribes for different purposes. This is just plain old settled Jewish law.

Maybe that's the problem -- you don't know what "settled Jewish law" means.

The tribal affiliation of someone has been fixed since before Moshe. The word that's used is "House of Xxxx", this is why we say things like "Beit David" or "Beit Judah" or "Beit Ahron". Because it is the House of David, or House of Judah, or House of Aaron haKohen. It was so thoroughly established that there is a passage in the Torah where three sisters, who had neither brothers nor husbands, and whose parents had passed away, were going to be completely disenfranchised. Moshe had to ask G-d what to do because the lands were given to the tribes through the male line.. That's how "settled" this was. For someone who's father was not a Jew (and G-d is not a Jew, just so you know), they are not a member of any tribe, and there's not a real rabbi on the planet who is going to disagree with that statement.

ok jewish people make lots of claims, but my interest was if you can find me in the tanach God actually saying, that tribal affiliations can only come through the Father, or God telling prophets to proclaim this ? as far as I know God says that for certain situations like war to count the numbers of male by the Father to go into war or other situations but he never actually says that tribal affiliations can only come from the Father.

so as far as God goes, it's possible for Jesus to be of the tribe of Judah through the Mother.

IMHO

Well, I'm not a Muslim, now, am I?

no you're certainly not, yet you're saying both muslims and christians follow contradictions.

If, assuming for a moment, your assertion is correct, Jesus was not the fulfillment because Ahaz was long since dead and couldn't see the sign. Jesus also wasn't the fulfillment, because Jesus didn't fulfill any of the prophecies that are associated with that section of prophecy. Again, all you're doing at this point is cherry picking.

the sign was not for Ahaz sight

I hope you accept the Judaic Press Complete Tanach.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7:13. And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

14. 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 sign was for the house of David if you read it in context.

Jesus also wasn't the fulfillment, because Jesus didn't fulfill any of the prophecies that are associated with that section of prophecy

which prophecy did Jesus not fulfill from there ?

and do you admit now that it had to be a miracle ?

I already have -- Mishnah Ketubot. Go forth and read!

can you please give me the chapter and verse so I can show to my jewish sources.

I would greatly appreciate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if there was a young woman of marriable age she would be married in order to have intimate relations for that I would use either 'ishshah or ba'al.

Bzzt! Wrong answer!

"Ishah" is a grown woman, and "Ba'al" is just a generic person. The correct word for "young woman" is "almah".

there is no word for a young woman of marriable age who is not married having sexual relations as far as I know it was forbidden by the community and God as my jewish sources have told me.

Sure there is -- "almah". "Almah" means, literally, "youth (female)".

ok jewish people make lots of claims, but my interest was if you can find me in the tanach God actually saying, that tribal affiliations can only come through the Father, or God telling prophets to proclaim this ?

Sure -- it's in Ba'midbar 1:1. G-d tells Moshe how to conduct a census and which people to count.

Num 1:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first [day] of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

(That is, this is G-d telling Moshe the rules for a census, and how families are enumerated.)

Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls;

(That is, the tribe, or "House" is determined by the fathers -- "l'beit avtam" -- counting just the males)

Num 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

(And that's the age requirement -- over 20 -- and it includes a stipulation that they be able to fight, which means, don't count the infirm)

Num 1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.

(And again we see the "house of his fathers" language -- "ish rosh l'beit avtav" -- a man who is the head ("rosh") of his father's (ancestrally) house.

That's the formula, and every time tribal affiliation comes up, that's the formula.

as far as I know God says that for certain situations like war to count the numbers of male by the Father to go into war or other situations but he never actually says that tribal affiliations can only come from the Father.

Of course it doesn't say that. It also doesn't say it's okay to drive a car the wrong way down a one way street. The bible doesn't say a lot of things. Claiming that the bible DOES say something, just because it DOESN'T say the opposite is illogical, irrational and intellectually dishonest.

so as far as God goes, it's possible for Jesus to be of the tribe of Judah through the Mother.

No, because there is no law that allows it, and more than abundant law that sets tribal affiliation by the father, when the father is a Jew, or as a 'am yisreal' when not.

At any rate, I have class in 7 minutes. I don't believe for an instant that you have a single Jewish source for anything you write, and suspect that most of what you get is coming from missionary websites.

If you want to learn how Jews read the bible, that's great. If you want to convince me Christianity is right, forget it. Based on what I've seen, I have a better grasp of Christian theology than you, and I can do it without twisting the Hebrew texts into mush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Alaikis Salaam sister,  Why don't you refer the book called 'Mafatih al-Jinan'. It has Aa'mal and duas for every month.  Search Google, play store or App store. 
    • Salaam Aleikum, Let say there is period of time where a born Muslim live in west and have no idea of anything about God, Islam, Prayer, Islamic laws and the person lives only according his desires and have ignorance about the matters of Islam. If the person realize God, and realize Islam and start to practice Islam, will the past sins be all forgiven?  Second, what happens to the Salaat and Fasting of that time, does it need to do Qada?
    • “... there will be there all that the souls could desire, all that the eyes could delight in …” (Quran 43:71) “Eat and drink at ease for that which you have sent forth (good deeds) in days past!” (Quran 69:24) “… They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold, and they will wear green garments of fine silk and heavy brocade.  They will recline therein on raised thrones.  How good [is] the recompense!  How beautiful a couch [is there] to recline on!” (Quran 18:31) not hear therein ill speech or commission of sin.  But only the saying of: Peace! Peace!” (Quran 56:25-26) There will be no enmity between people nor ill-feelings: “And We shall remove from their breasts any (mutual) hatred or sense of injury (which they had, if at all, in the life of this world)…” (Quran 7:43)   “And whoever obeys God and the Messenger – those will be with the ones upon whom God has bestowed favor – of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous.  And excellent are those as companions!” (Quran 4:69) “Crystal-white, delicious to those who drink (thereof), free from intoxication, nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom” (Quran 37:46-47)   “...rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes...” (Quran 47:15)   they shall have therein purified mates…” (Quran 2:25) “And when you look there (in Paradise) you will see a delight (that cannot be imagined), and a great dominion.” (Quran 76:20) 
    • A penny for your thoughts!  Come on people.
    • ^ Added to OP "some" western Muslims, to avoid generalization, because that was not the OP intention to generalize. And let's calm down please.
×