How the NT quotes Tanach texts

"Context" means "within the text". Outside sources such as the New Testament are not context. Even if they correctly explicate the text, they are not context.

So the old testament is saying "Behold! LOOK! Be amazed!" a young woman shall concieve and give birth.Really? They were surprised or astouinded or asked to take special notice of one of the most common things in the world - that a young woman gets preggers?
That's what faith was saying about the context strongly indicates virgin. Even if it doesn't the NT is clear that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. -That's kinda why it was called a miracle.

No, Almah was never used to be Virgin. It did not say that it was not virgin, but never referred to sexual purity at all. . It means 'a young girl/woman of marriageable age'.And, no, God did not inspire the NT authors at all. NO more than God inspired Joseph Smith or Mohammed.As for 'how blind the Pharisees were.. well, all that means is that the writers of the N.T. were angry at the Pharisees , because they were kicked out from worshiping with them, since their belief system had become hereticalAlmah never referred to 'only a virgin'. In the Song of Solomon, almah is used in a very distinctly sexual situation, where it is most definitely NOT a virgin.I really like how these fundamentalist Christians think they know Hebrew and the Jewish faith better than Jews.

Not quite. The term translated in the Greek is Parthenos, which quite often meant young woman, but sometimes meant Virgin. There was a shift in translation and meaning over the centuriesWe have examples of the term parthenos being used for people who were most certainly not virgins.. but the term changed meanings by the 1st century c.e.This indicates that the author of the Gospel of Mathew was reading the Greek, not to the Hebrew.

No, it wasn't saying that at all. The next chapter has a perfectly ordinary birth used in just the same way. The birth is a time marker for the predicted events. That's why Faith's point was an ignorant mistake - it ignored the actual context.

No, it doesn't say that at all.Basically, Isaiah's point is this:"Before this girl's kid grows up, those kings you're afraid of will already be gone." There's no astonishment mentioned at all. And the pregnancy is really beside the point, which is that it won't be long before the Lord takes care of the two kings that are teaming up against the House of David. Her viginity is totally incidental to what Isaiah was talking about.Here's the pertinant parts:

quote:

---

2 Now the house of David was told, Aram has allied itself with Ephraim; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

​

...

​

13 Then Isaiah said, Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

---

ABE:PaulK bring up a good point about the next chapter:

quote:

---

8 The Lord said to me, Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me.
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.

---

Again, its just a way to keep track of some timeframe. Before X, then Y. Where for X he's using the birth of a child.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Deleted.
Not worth it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ill be helping my brother or sister Faith, here, in dismantling, the comical approach set out by secular fundamental humanists, in trying to argue from scripture, that scripture cannot have a meaning to the futureBut as always Ill be doing it from a purely logical standpoint, which should quickly dismiss the nonesense, of people who do not believe in God or inspiration, that such things cannot applyWhen you formulate an argument from or about scripture, you have to assume atleast the possibly, from an argument standpoint, that all its claims are valid, for it to make any senseIf you start from the proposition, that its claims to divine guidance and inspiration are not true, then there is no reason to be concerned whether the writer meant, virgin or young womenThe meaning is going to be missed by the Secular fundamentalist humanistSo which is it, is it inspired or not?I promise you Ill dismantle your misunderstanding as quickly as I did with ArchStarting an argument in the middle of its content, (vigin or young women), is like trying to decide which flavor of cheese the moon is made ofYou want to be logical and rational, please, have at itEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Ill be helping my brother or sister Faith, here, in dismantling, the comical approach set out by secular fundamental humanists, in trying to argue from scripture, that scripture cannot have a meaning to the future

---

Fath is not an insane worshiper of Star Trek, and displaying your lunacy does nothing to help her.

quote:

---

But as always Ill be doing it from a purely logical standpoint, which should quickly dismiss the nonesense, of people who do not believe in God or inspiration, that such things cannot apply

---

As you've demonstrated here you have no understanding of logic. None.A liar for Jesus is pathetic. A liar for Spock is even worse.

quote:

---

If you start from the proposition, that its claims to divine guidance and inspiration are not true, then there is no reason to be concerned whether the writer meant, virgin or young women

---

Wrong.

quote:

---

You want to be logical and rational, please, have at it

---

Certainly, Attempting to have a rational discussion with you is a complete waste of time. So go away.

Temper temper PaulK, you only due harm to your position and give the impression you cannot defend your positionOr was that your motive to begin with, to avoid answering questions and argumentsAs Ive demonstrated by more than three thousand posts, I have a very firm and clear understanding of reality and the issues involvedSo Ill ask the question again, with no hope you will attempt an answer. Lets try anywaySince the texts clearly claims inspiration and divine guidance from God himself, could this not affect the overall picture of prophecySince the writer is claiming divine guidance, could there not be a bigger picture across time concerning the meaning of these passages and who they would involve?Since you assume the writer of the Old Testament is correct in what he trying to communicate, why should we not assume, the writer of the NT would be directed by the same divine guidanceIf your position is strickly a humanistic, atheistic approach to the meaning of the writers words why or how could it matterNow, here are some questions for you to deal with, so lets see how much I dont really understandBe a man now PaulK, dont shrink from your obligations. Step up to the plate, be a grown upAs i told you earlier, there is no task in showing the silliness of a secular fundamentalist, trying to defend, understand or explain, scripture, muchless prophecyPaulK writesYouve heard the expression, "Get behind me Satan". Come on Lucipher, you can do better than that--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

PaulK writes UnbelievableThese are the kind of statements that make you a filthy, unobjective, intellectually dishonest liar. There is no one that ignores the entirity of the context more than a secular fundamental humanist. You pretend that you believe or understand, what the writer is trying to communicate, then blatently ignore and deny any claim to the miraculous, divine guidance.You do understand the willful stupidity and blatant arrogance for assuming such an alledged, misguided evaluation on Faiths part, correctIm sorry PaulK, please tell me again, who does not understand sound reasoning. Your ignorance of such things is either willful or you really are that sillyDo you really think you can dismiss the NTs and Christians claims to fulfilled prophecy without understanding and starting with simple sound reasoningCome now PaulK you can do much better than thatDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So your unwarrented and unreasonable rejection of the miraculous that is clearly a part of the 'Virgin', text we can dismiss as, Not in Context , correctSince we can reject your non-context views, then we can assume the miraculous in the context is acceptable, believable and accurate, correctOh Im sorry, did I speak of turn and assume that you do not accept the miraculous, when you actually do?Man I tell you what, it sure would help from an argumentation standpoint, to know what you fellas believe about these things. You see, this would make it much simpler to argue a position from an actual rational standpointOr is that simply a sloppy debating tactic, to keep someone in the dark concerning your actual views, to further confuse the issues?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hardly. Actually this is an example of divine guidance. Just like the writers of the NT record some of the same events, and some writers refer to others writing, like Peter did with Paul,Jerimiah probably spoke the same truth to others and Zachariah actually recorded it. Or some Jermiahs witings were misplaced.Since historical finds tend always to corroborate old and NT claims, if a writing that claimed to be from Jerimiah surfaced, would you then convert to Christianity? Or would you simply just look for other minor, alledged problems?The point is that if you dont start with the plain claim to inspiration, you can believe what ever you wishThe point is also, that only inspiration could make known to Matthew who actually made the statementThe same inspiration that revealed to any of the prophets divine truth, could only make it known to a bunch uneducated fisherman, tax collectors and otherwise disinterested people, like the disciples, that these things refered to Christ.Seriously, why would a bunch of disinterested people, with little or no imagination, place themselves in a position of death, just to create a new story that would literally cost them thier livesEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Bs'dAn assumption without the slightest proof.The facts are: The quoted text is from Zechariah, and not from Jeremiah. Then I would not use the argument anymore that the NT writers were an-alphabetic ignoramuses who couldn't point out the right prophet.But since that is not going to pop up, that fact keeps on standing. Maybe because they had been bamboozled into believing something that was a hoax?Maybe they didn't, but maybe the gospels were compiled long after the events had come to pass.Why do Muslims kill themselves for their false religion?People do weird things. And who can, with the limited tools of logic, probe the debts of the human mind?

Bs'dAnd of course, when you randomly take Tanach texts which have no bearing on the messiah, and rip them out of context, and then mistranslate them, and then say they are messianic prophecies, then you can make everybody you want the messiah, whether it is Napoleon Bonaparte, Barak Obama, David Koresh, or the rooster of Moshe:A Chassidic Rabbi Makes a Startling DiscoveryMy name is Moshe and I am a Chassidic Jew who has, from my youth, learned the words of our Holy Prophets, and has been puzzled by their meaning.
Then, on the day before Yom Kippur, I contemplated the solemnity of the day and was made aware of the amazing meaning of G-d's words. I recognized the fulfillment of 42 Messianic prophecies of the Tenach, and they changed my life forever.1. Early in the morning I went to get my rooster to fulfill the ancient custom. There in the light I looked into his eyes and saw fulfilled the words, 'I am the rooster* who has seen affliction.' (Lam. 3:1)2. I took him and swung him around my head as the verse says, 'And he circled his head**.' (Lam 3:5)3. I moved my hands as I swirled him, as it says, 'Only against me did he turn his hand.' (Lam 3:3)4. With this he leaped from my hand and started to run. As it says, 'They have run away without seeing good.' (Job 9:25)5. I cried a short pray to HaShem as it says, 'My words I say out of the bitterness of my soul.' (Job 10:1)6. He ran from me, fulfilling the verse, 'To me they showed their back and not their face.' (Jer. 32:33)7/8. I borrowed a cane from a man near me so as to catch him with the rounded edge, as the verse says, 'And Moshe took the stick.' (Ex. 4:20, Num 20:8)9/10. I tried to catch him with the hook, but only the blows of the cane hit his back as it says, 'Afflicted by the rod of his anger.' (Lam. 3:1 and it also says, 'I struck you with the blows of an enemy.' (Jer. 30:12)11. He turned to me and I got him right on the cheek fulfilling the verse, 'I have offered my cheek to the one who strikes me.' (Lam. 3:30)12. He ran from me into a dark corner and I followed after him, as the verse says, 'He has led me and driven me into the darkness and not light.'
(Lam. 3:2)13. I had him there in the corner as it says; 'All her pursuers overtook her in the small place.' (Lam. 1:3)14. He stood there silent, as he had been to this time in fulfillment of the words of the prophet, 'He was persecuted and afflicted, be he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)15. In that corner there was just nowhere for him to hide from me as the verse says, 'Can a person hide in a concealed place, and I should not see him?' (Jer. 23:25)16. He was now trapped as the verse says, 'He has walled me in so I cannot escape.' (Lam. 3:7)17. In his eyes I could see him praying silently to HaShem, 'My G-d my G-d why have you forsaken me?' (Psalm 22:1)18. Clearly it was fulfilled for him, 'The mighty ones of Bashan encircle me.' (Psalm 22:13)19. I grabbed him and he started to call out to HaShem.
As the verse says, 'My G-d, I call to you by day and you do not answer and by night and there is no respite.' (Psalm 22:3)20. But there was no answer as it says, 'Though I would scream out and plead he shut out my prayer.' (Lam. 3:8)21. It was clearly the end. I grabbed him and took my place in the line waiting to give my rooster to the shochet (ritual slaughterer.) He was silent, 'Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe to her sharers he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)22. The shochet took him by the neck as it says; 'He grasped me by the neck.' (Job 16:12)23. With that he screamed out, 'Be not far from me because distress is near and there is none to help me.' (Psalm 22:12)24. He also said, 'Save my soul from the sword.' (Psalm 22:21)25. He slaughtered him fulfilling 'He was removed from the living land.' (Is. 53:8)26. He let the blood fall on the floor, as it says, 'I am poured out like water.' (Psalm 22:15)27. I took the dead chicken and gazed at it as the prophet says, 'They have looked upon me whom they have pierced.' (Zech 12:10)28/29. I took it to be made kosher. We separated it into pieces snapping it's bones as the verses say, 'All my bones became disjointed.' (Psalm 22:15) 'He has broken my bones.' (Lam 3:4)30. Then I took him home to cook. My wife removed the skin as it says, 'He has worn away my flesh and skin.' (Lam. 3:4)31. She placed him in a pot with water, as it says, 'For the waters have reached unto my soul.' (Psalm 69:2)32. She added many spices as it says, 'And she gave ...many spices.' (1 Kings 10:10)33. She covered up the pot so it could cook as it says; 'He has placed me in darkness.' (Lam 3:6)34. The smell of it filled the room as it says, 'That the spices may flow out.' (Song 4:16)35. After that it was served on the table and we gazed upon it as the verse says, 'I count my bones and they gaze and look upon me.' (Psalm 22:18)36. He was divided among the members of my family, as it says, 'Therefore I will divide him among the many.' (Is. 53:12)37/38. We rejoiced and sang as we ate him, as it says, 'I have become a thing of laughter for my people, they sing all day long.' (Lam. 3:14) 'In him our hearts were joyful.' (Psalm 33:21)39/40/41. After which we were full and praised G-d as it says, 'You shall eat and be satisfied and praise HaShem your G-d.' (Deut. 6:11,8:10,11:15).42. We truly saw the goodness of G-d as it say, 'You should taste and see that HaShem is good.' (Psalm 34:9)There were many more messianic prophecies that I could have added that applied to my messianic rooster. Many more he will fulfill when he comes back.In all seriousness the above example is no different then the lists claiming 200/300/400 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. They claim the odds against a single person fulfilling them are astronomical. Or of their claims that passages like Psalms 22, or Isaiah 53 are about their messiah/god. Consider this well when you see or hear the claims made by missionaries or just simple Christians who you may meet. If not there may be a prophecy that does really apply: 'They are a people bereft of council and they don't have understanding.'* In Hebrew the word 'gever' means both 'man' and 'rooster'berew
** In Hebrew the word is resh aleph shin, which can be read as 'rosh' head'