[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, it was prophesied in Hezekiah 4:2 (look it up). Isaiah, it's been established, didn't mention "virgin." That was a mistranslation in the LXX. If Matthew and Luke had been true to their Judaism, and not fallen for Hellenization, they would have known that too, and would have known what we know today. Clearly, in their zeal they jumped the gun, or the shark. And then it was twisted and solidified when we made their mistake scripture. So now we're forced to accept a mistake as the word of God.

And then the Chaloic church followed the first logical step, starting with "virgin," so Jesus was God, to the next, that Mary was the mother of God, to the next, Mary being bodily lifted up to heaven, and to the final logical step, she's now the holy mother in heaven, and ... AND ... guess what??? ... she's still a virgin.

I'll be darn. All from a slip of a pen, so to speak.

Just because Rome embellished Mary worship for centuries, does not make the Gospels acc. to Matthew and Luke untrue. Just because David Koresh embellished Revelations in Waco, does not make the Bible prophecy untrue.

Let's look at Isaiah 7.14 ...

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There are a good number of significant points which must be considered:

• The action was taken by the Lord Jehovah Himself -- that which was "begotten in her was of the Holy Spirit."
• This was a sign to Israel, a marvelous wonder greater than the Passsover, whether they accepted it or not. One day they will.
• A virgin conceived. Isaiah was not talking about spurious mythologies, nor young girls getting pregnant. What kind of sign would that be? Why do we need the Lord Himself?
• His name was Immanuel. His name was "God with us." God Himself was now a part of humanity, part of His creation. God was now with us.