(September 19, 2013 at 6:19 am)Zone Wrote: Only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth so apparently there wasn't a consensus on this or it wasn't considered a big enough deal to mention. The original Hebrew prophecy refers a "young woman" rather than specifying her as a virgin. And also virgin births of various great historical figures in the ancient world and the odd god were apparently quite common.
More importantly, reading Isaiah 7 (the entire chapter), it's clear the statement wasn't a "prophecy" of future events but a sign from Yahweh that providence favored king Ahaz in his war with Syria. His statement "God with us" as the name for the child reflects a promise that Yahweh will not abandon Ahaz in his moment of need, not a claim that the child would be the divine avatar of Yahweh. There is no reason to believe that Isaiah was speaking of a future messiah, to be born some several hundred years later.
...and Ahaz lost that war with Syria. So much for "God with us".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
