How the NT quotes Tanach texts

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.

Now, here you are being exactly what you claimed Paulk to be.Dishonest.Isaiah 7:14, the passage of the alleged prophecy, does not say 'Virgin'.The word in question, Almah, does not refer to sexual purity, but rather a young woman of marriageable age.Not only that, but the 'full fillment' of the prophecy was to King Ahaz, and the birth of the child was a 'timer' for certain events to happen.. that supposedly did.. during the reign of King Ahaz. Isaiah himself describes it, and says HE and his sons are the signs to king Ahaz.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

I am trying to see how your response makes any sense, considering the thread and the arguments.It doesn't.

Before I can say 'I disagree', or give reasons for disagreeing, your argument has to make at least a bit of sense first. I do not see any sense in the argument.It looks like one giant non-sequitur that has no connection with what was being argued.