Sign of the Virgin and Immanuel

a reply to: undo

Adam was the original son of God, but he sinned so therefore he lost that status.

That is why NO bibles distinguish or worship Adam as being (officially) the first son of man.

He wasn't capable of withstanding his status for what (limited or long?) time he had.
So, no. Adam is not worshiped nor considered 'the son of man'

The many generations AFTER Noah were treated as humans, and considered sons of man but only Jesus himself was The Son of Man because of his divine birth, life and death. *How this relates to a virgin birth is unknown. Perhaps it would scare some to know that if it came down it it...men could be obsolete, if necessary. lol

originally posted by: dianashay
a reply to: undo

Adam was the original son of God, but he sinned so therefore he lost that status.

That is why NO bibles distinguish or worship Adam as being (officially) the first son of man.

He wasn't capable of withstanding his status for what (limited or long?) time he had.
So, no. Adam is not worshiped nor considered 'the son of man'

The many generations AFTER Noah were treated as humans, and considered sons of man but only Jesus himself was The Son of Man because of his divine birth, life and death. *How this relates to a virgin birth is unknown. Perhaps it would scare some to know that if it came down it it...men could be obsolete, if necessary. lol

well that all depends on if you know for certain what the context is of words relating to elohim, adam and jehovah/yahweh.

for example, the first adam created were created males and females in the image of elohim. they weren't human yet, they were copies of elohim.

let me repeat that in case you missed it the first time, the first adam created (they weren't humans yet, they were adam, created in the image of elohim, males and females. ) that means, the first adam was a bunch of male and female elohim copies. not human beings. it says "man" in the king james version but the actual word there is adam, not man. adam is not differentiated into human beings (man) known as adam and eve or man and woman, till the references surrounding the tree of knowledge event.

why is it, after they are created in the image of elohim, they are told to go forth, be fruitful and MULTIPLY, but in the tree of knowledge scenario, they are punished for being procreative (multiplying)? cause that's what that entire passage is saying: their eyes were opened (they could see each other's nude bodies, suddenly, as desirable, when before that, they didn't even notice they were naked because they weren't procreative).

the tree of knowledge gave them procreation and as a result, desire for procreating. adam KNEW his wife and she begat. knowledge at that time in history, was about sex. to have knowledge of someone, you had sex with them. the tree of knowledge is about genetic inheritance governing procreative ability. thats why their lifespans were shortened, because the god of this world (satan) didn't want procreative, multiplying, humans, to retain their eternally regenerative elohim copied bodies if they were going to multiply. can you imagine how fast this planet would've been overwhelmed in population, if we never died and had the ability to multiply at will? well the god of this world imagined it apparently, and demanded a death sentence and a set of laws.

maybe reading what the law actually is, in the new testament, would help. (hint: the law is the accuser, the adversary. sorta like the prosecuting attorney. remember job? )

virgin birth is artificial insemination. to give virgin birth, didn't necessarily mean you had never had sexual relations, just that the impregnation was not the result of sexual intercourse or "knowledge" of the person impregnating you. you see the divine court, has to work around the laws of the god of this world, in order to meet his demands (which are many. did you notice him trying to give jesus the planet in exchange for jesus' fealty? )

originally posted by: dianashay
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The given quote in Isaiah has been used for nearly 2000 years as "Proof" if the "immaculate conception" the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and that his mother was a lit. virgin. Now I am not of that opinion, infact this whole thread is an attempt at showing Jesus was not the Messiah and that if Mary was a virgin it wasn't prophesied, so I suggest you read through the OP again

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't need to read the OP again, I am sure that the OP implied that Emmanuel/Immanuel is an actual name of a person.

Immanuel/Emmanuel is a 'name' predicted by Isaiah which means (in Hebrew/Aramaic) "God With Us". *Matthew 23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This name was given to favored (or first) sons thereafter and ever since.

Just a note: The verse in Isaiah should actually be read "Behold, Virgo shall conceive" but nevermind... Ha-Alma, "The Young Maiden" or simply the dating reference Virgo. It is a sign, remember? A constellation.

Continued: "Immanuel was only one of many names used in reference to Jesus. In fact, Isaiah 9:6 also taught, "his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Each of these names reveals important information regarding the nature and work of the Messiah. However, Jesus was not called these names during His early life. He was simply known as Jesus. *SEE my above videos on that subject.

Like I said, and what is the purpose of this thread, Jesus was named after Isaiah (it's the same name). The Immanuel prophecy is about Isaiah's (or Jesus') son. And sorry, I don't watch preachers. They sound weird and move like they need to change pants all the time.

and: "Third, the angel who appeared to Mary commanded her to name Him Jesus, not Immanuel: "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (Luke 1:31). An angel also appeared to Joseph, saying, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). This dream was noted as a fulfillment of the name Immanuel as predicted by Isaiah (Matthew 1:22-24).

Like I have said a million times by now, Jesus and Isaiah are near identical names only spelled differently since they appear half a century apart and belong to two different stages of Hebrew/Aramaic. Like I said in the OP ישעיה JeS-AJaH means "salvation of Yah" — ישוע JeShUA means "Yah is salvation". Other names that are identical or similar to Jesus are Hosea, Joshuah, Josvah and plenty more.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Compare with the triumph of Jesus' son in Revelation 19:11 onwards. Note he is carrying all the insignia and relics he has inherited from Jesus, just like Jesus inherited them from his father. The rider on the white horse in Rev 19 isn't Jesus. It's his son.

The OP proves nor disproves nothing except an attempt to make a point via the misuse of unsubstantiated, uninformed and mistranslated text of languages he/she doesn't even speak.

Hm. Why are you feeling so threatened? As far as I know the matter discussed in the op is quite original and there is not much if anything out there to substantiate it, other than

A: Jesus and Isaiah are basically the same name. Fact.
-- ישעיה JeS-AJaH means "salvation of Yah" — ישוע JeShUA means "Yah is salvation" Fact.

B: My linguistic analysis is sound. Fact.
-- I could list the books I have used in reference to build my case, including the Leningrad Tannakh and a handful translations including an interlinear one, BDB lexicon, Strong's concordance, an analytical lexicon, a couple of dictionaries, dictionaries of gods and demons in the ME. Fact.

C: The Text says 'The virgin' (definite noun proper, not general 'a virgin') or lit. 'The young woman' since a virgin as such would be called a בתולה "bethulah". Fact.

D: This virgin, or should we say maiden is described as 'a sign' or 'a symbol' even 'an ensign' or 'a standard' are relevant translations. Heb. אות "oth" is from the root verb אוה "avah" which has atleast two definitions, #1 'to draw' or 'sign' and #2 'to desire', 'demand' or 'crave'. Fact.

E: My Hebrew could indeed have been better, but I'm getting there.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows:

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ [LXX] Isaiah 7:14

Now the words used in the LXX here: 'ἡ παρθένος' or rather 'ἡ Παρθένος' "He Parthenos" lit. means 'The Virgin' or 'The Maiden' and moreover it is the Greek name for the constellation Virgo. The zodiac as we call it was in development in the time of Isaiah, but I was unable to confirm that Virgo would be known to Isaiah. But it is likely. Gemini as 'The Twins' was known in 1000 BC:

en.wikipedia.org...

The division of the ecliptic into the zodiacal signs originates in Babylonian ("Chaldean") astronomy during the first half of the 1st millennium BC, likely during Median/"Neo-Babylonian" times (7th century BC).[6] The classical zodiac is a modification of the MUL.APIN catalogue, which was compiled around 1000 BC. Some of the constellations can be traced even further back, to Bronze Age (Old Babylonian) sources, including Gemini "The Twins", from MAŠ.TAB.BA.GAL.GAL "The Great Twins", and Cancer "The Crab", from AL.LUL "The Crayfish", among others.