Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

If you take each and every 'prophecy' that alledgely fortells Jesus, and look at it in CONTEXT, you will find that IN CONTEXT it does not fortell Jesus.You just can't discuss them all at the same time.Right now, the so called 'virgin birth' is the subject. Isaiah 7:14 is not a messanic prophecy.. since it was a sign to King Ahaz.. and in fact, Almah (the reference to teh woman in Isaiah 7:14) does not mean virgin.

Well, you seem to be just dismissing any arguement that trys to run counter to your belief.That doesn't sound rational to me.After we beat this passage to death, how about pointing us to what you consider a real hard piece of prophecy that definately shows Jesus.. and we can anaylyse that to death too.

Well, it doesn't describe Christ. And, from the point of Isaiah, it doesn't matter what Peter says either.That particular passage was an allegory talking about the nation of Israel.Indeed, if you look the passages before that, Isaiah specfically says that Israel is the servant. In Isaiah's eyes, the sins of the people of Israel were causing the Nation of Israel to suffer.Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10)

Although Chrisitans have compared Isaiah 53 to be Christ.. however, the passage also says 'Years will be added to his life', and therefore even IF Isaiah 53 was talking about a messiah, the fact that Jesus did not have years added to his life excludes him from being the suffering servent in Isaiah 53.

You are ignoring Jewish law and tradition.Of the SEED of David means direct male decendant, no adoptions or anything like that. That was the understanding of it. The Cohens and the Levites had the same set up with the priesthood. A person could not
become a Cohen or a Levite to serve in the temple via adoption.. it had to be a naturally born child of that father.

Well, for #2, no, he wouldn't. He was decended from David from a line that was 'cursed' and therefore that line is not eligable to take the davidic throne.

One point.. when it comes to the Jewish tradition.. it would not matter what lineage Mary is.... the lineage goes through the father for the tribe/house.

Well, there is no incident where ALmah means virgin. It is not exclusive to virgin.. but the hebrew word for Virgin is Bethulla, which Isaiah used elsewhere in this chapter.If you read just a few sentances after 7:14, you can see how Isaiah caused 7:14 to be fullfilled. Isaiah 8:3.. I went to the prophetess and
insured she conceived. In other words, Isaiah is talking about his own son, and the sign to King Ahaz was before this kid was more than a toddler, certain events would happen (Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.)The sign is not that the child is going to be born.. but rather, it is a poetic way of giving a time period.If you want to look at where ALmah is not being refered to a virgin, look at the song of solomon, where an almah is refered to in very intimate and erotic terms.This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-14-2005 18:39 AMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 01-14-2005 18:43 AM

Partly wrong. If they wanted to highlight she was a virgin, they would use 'Bethula'

Part of the problem with strong is he was coming from the Christian biblical definnitions. He has made quite a few mistakes.

In addition to Almah not exclusvely meaning virgin, the word it was translated to in the Septagaint (parthenos) does not exclusively mean virgin either.The translation into a greek of a woman that was raped in Genesis was
translated to Parthnos too.

Immanual might have been a prophic name to Strong, but to the ancient hebrews it was a name they gave their kids to celbrate the Worship of God. Strng was coming from the CHristian intepretation.Of course, I would like to see where Jesus was called Immanual in his lifetime too..

Well, Christianity HAS corrupted the meaning of what you call the old testament.For example, Isaiah 7:14, the word ALMAH does not mean virgin. That is
a corruption. If Isaiah wanted to mean virgin, he would have use BETHULAH, not ALmah, which indeed the writer of Isaiah did do on several occations in his piece of scripture.Then, the corruption of Psalm 22.. where K'ari is translated as 'Pierced', when it means 'like a lion'.. as far as I can see, that was
a very purposeful mistranslation.

Actually, it would be more correct to say that CHristians used different
translations than what is said in biblical hebrew.The people who say that ALmah means virgin are the people who speak Hebrew. There are examples in the Tanakh of ALMAH being used in relation to non-virgins, such as in the Song of Solomon where an almah is described in very sexual and intimate detail.In the septanigent, the term ALMAH was translated to be Parthenos. This term was also used in there to describe a woman (rebecca) who was raped in Genesis.. two strikes against it meaning "Virgin"

I believe that the Sanhediren could have someone stoned to death.But not cruxified.