[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, as usual you are all washed up on your biblical facts.

Firstly, I'll just ignore your "Hezekiah 4:2" reference because it's not, and never has been, part of the accepted canon by the Jewish or Christian scholars.

Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. The ORIGINAL Hebrew word עַלְמָה `almah, can mean BOTH (NOT necessarily either) young woman and virgin. The context of Isaiah 7 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT OF A YOUNG, UNMARRIED VIRGIN GIRL. In fact the use of this word almah is almost exclusively referring to a young, unmarried virgin girl. CONTEXT IS KING! When in doubt...CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT!

The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, took the Hebrew word almah, which can mean both young woman and virgin, and rendered it parthenos, which more explicitly and exclusively denotes virginity. It’s impossible to know exactly what the original hearers of Isaiah’s prophecy thought it meant, but it’s clear that the later translators thought the prophet meant virgin, not merely young woman.

If the prophesy of Isaiah 7:4 is simply referring to a young woman who engages in sex and conceives well then it is not a prophesy at all, now is it? What kind of miraculous deed of God is this?

Sorry, I've already made it clear, we are NOT going down the Catholic doctrine path here on this forum. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS. The Local Church of Witness Lee did not teach any of these Catholic doctrines. So unless we have any ex Local Churcher's who have converted to Roman Catholicism let's leave all the Catholic stuff off the table.

I find it mindboggling that you can dismiss the history of the Catholic Church as a point of discussion. In 1517 Martin Luther promoted his 95 theses which means that up until that point there was 1500 years of the development and the practice of the Catholic Church. If you read 1 Clement (approx. 95AD) who was the bishop of Rome at the time you can see it's development only to be further crystallized by Constantine. WL spoke of the Catholic Church in disparaging terms but also all of its Protestant children. While the Protestant Reformation was in the eyes of WL the beginning of the recovery the question is always "recovery from what"...the indulgences paid for forgiveness of sin. Let's not forget that the Catholics for all their warts preserved important documents and are a part of the Christian history. You can't just wipe 1500 years away and say "never mind?...it's not relevant...forget their interpretations. Where do Christians get the history of the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ etc but from the Catholic Church? Are you saying that we can't discuss the "doctrine" of the Trinity or the divine nature of Christ because it is part of the Catholic history? All Christian history is relevant for discussion and WL referred to the history of the Church repeatedly.