sigh-we have been over this again and again. Isaiah had three sons, by his wife, "the prophetess". each son was named according to a prophecy. I found a beautiful explanation at the following website:
LIGHT OF ISRAELWhat the heck, I'll post the entire quote because I am sick of this. Plain and simple, the author of Matthew, who is the only n.t. writer, including Paul, that even mentions the "virgin birth", either made an error or deliberately misquoted Isaiah. Since the "Gospel of Matthew" that we have dates from 351, the council of Constantinople, we don't know whether there even was a Matthew, or if it was made up in 351 (or 325, for Something Like Laughter). Either way, the pressure is always on the N.T. to prove itself, not the other way around. Probably Joseph was his father, anyway, since noone else seemed to know about the "virgin birth", and the author of Matthew is clearly misinterpreting Isaiah. Of course, GOd was Jesus's spiritual father, just like he is "our father", all of us. The "young woman" Isaiah speaks of,is very clearly his own wife, the "prophetess",and the prophecy was fulfilled while Isaiah was still alive. His third son, not the Messiah, is clearly indicated.
QUOTE
SIGNS AND WONDERS
Isaiah, the prophet of YHWH, had three sons, each of whom was named symbolically, as a "sign" or signal that certain events were to take place during the lifetime of that child. One of these children was named "MAHER SHALAL - HASH BAZ", which means, "Swift to loot, quick to take booty". This does NOT mean that the child himself would be a looter or a pillager! It means that during his lifetime, "before the child knows how to say "daddy, mommy," the wealth of Damascus and the booty of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria." Isaiah: 8: 1-4. Another child was named "SHEAR YASHUV" which means "a remnant shall return". This does NOT mean that the child himself is a "returning remnant". It means that during his lifetime, only a remnant shall remain of the once mighty kingdom of Israel (ibid 10:21). The name of the third child is "IMMANUEL" which means "God is with us". This does NOT mean that this child is an ""incarnation" of God Almighty. It means that "before the child knows the difference between bad and good", the land of Samaria and Damascus, which had been fighting against king Ahaz of Jerusalem, (see chap. 7:1) shall be deserted! (ibid: 16:17), BECAUSE EL, the Mighty ONE of Israel, is with us!
Each and every one of these prophecies was fulfilled in that day and age and have NO connection with events which supposedly occurred centuries afterwards. But WHY are these children called "signs and wonders" if they weren't involved in supernatural events? Please note that the son mentioned in Chapter 8:3 was conceived in a perfectly natural way. Yet, he too was one of the "signs and wonders". He wasn't born of a "virgin"! Nor were Immanuel or Shear Yashuv "signs or wonders" because of any supernatural birth or conception! For the answer to this turn to Isaiah 20:1-3. Here we are told that "like my servant Isaiah who has walked around naked and barefoot to be for three years A SIGN AND A WONDER on Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt and Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot!" (ibid 3-4). For another example, turn to Ezekiel 12,1-20. YHVH said to Ezekiel that he must go through the motions of a man about to go into exile, "for I have made you A SIGN to the House of Israel! And I did as I was commanded I took out my belongings by day, as provisions for exile... etc.& (ibid: 6-7).. say: I (Ezekiel) am your SIGN! as I have done, the same shall be done to them! They shall go into exile!" (verse 11.) All of these "signs and wonders" are symbolic acts, not miracles! In the instance of Isaiah's sons, the NAMING was the "sign". In the second example, Isaiah's walking around naked was the "sign". In the third example, Ezekiel's acting as if he were going into exile was the "sign". The "signs and wonders" is always given to the people or generation which is to see the occurrence, or events to which the symbolic act is related. (See Hosea 1:2-9, 3:1-2 for similar symbolic acts.)
Unfortunately for all concerned, the church fathers, scrounging around in the Hebrew Scriptures for proof tests to bolster up their faith in the would-be "messiah", were not particular about the true meaning of the passages they used. The "young woman" of Isaiah 7:14, actually Isaiah's wife, became the "virgin" mother of the incarnate god, Jesus, and eventually wound up in heaven herself like the "virgin-mothers" of other pagan gods who became queens of heaven. (compare Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25.) The man Jesus became a god in flesh, the second person of a pagan trinity. And mankind has been plunged in darkness and idolatry for nineteen centuries.
If you want the truth, read Hebrew Scriptures as they are, without taking passages out of context. You will discover something vastly different from the false doctrines of organized, apostate religion as represented by the churches and synagogues of our day. YHVH, the Holy One of Israel, has a very simple plan of salvation for YOU! No crucified god-man saviours born of virgins! No commandments of men learned by rote called "tradition".
YHVH SAYS: "If the wicked turn from all his sins that he has committed and keep all my statutes, and DO what is lawful and right, he shall SURELY LIVE! He will NOT DIE! None of the transgressions which he has done shall be remembered against him! Because of the RIGHTEOUSNESS he has hone, HE SHALL LIVE!" Ezekiel 18:21-22.
COME TO YHVH, TODAY!
Submitted by: M. Alfandari - A Jew That Cares
Therefore, I fail to see why we have to wonder if Mary was a whore, a prostitute, or cheated on Joseph. Besides, according to Jewish Law at the time, it was perfectly permissible for a betrothed couple to have sex, but God help you if you didn't go ahead and get married.
Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal
this is just a basic, I would think the point regaurdless of the who or what is that there were stories of virgin births before that of Mary, right?
good question JM