### Isaiah 7 Background Isaiah 7:14 is famously quoted by the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 1:23) as a prophecy about Jesus’s birth: > She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “**Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel**,” which means, “God is with us.” - Matthew 1:22-23 (NRSV) Many Christian apologists recognize that the events of Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the birth of the child had an application in the time of Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimite war , with the maturation of the child marking the victory of Judah over Syria: > Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. **For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted**. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” - Isaiah 7:14-17 (NRSV) Those who believe that there was an immediate context and fulfillment of this prophecy believe that it was later re-fulfilled in the birth of Jesus as a “dual-fulfillment ”, such as Dr. Michael Brown . ### Two Virgin Births? Do Christians who believe in a dual-fulfillment of Isaiah 7 believe that there were two virgin births? If so, do they believe that the first virgin born child was some kind of divine figure like Jesus? If there were not two virgin births, how was this prophecy fulfilled twice?

To create more humans a member of the female sex has to copulate with a member of the male sex. The man's sperm fertilities the egg and an embryo develops in the females womb and this is natural. I do not know how each denomination interprets Mary's virgin birth within the Christian faith. If Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin how can this *not* be considered supernatural as well as in the realm of magic? But the Catholic Pope Francis said that the Christian God is not a magician. There are also examples of testimony that Jesus performed miracles outside of the natural order. I know I have asked [a similar question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101757/10672) about God's omnipotence but these testimonies come into conflict with the Catholic Church's position upon the power of God. My intention is not to criticize the Christian faith at all. On the other hand, these questions come out of respect for the existence of God. So are there denominations of the Christian Faith that still believe that God has unquestionable power?

This haunting question came to me after seeing a documentary regarding the gospels and how John is not considered synoptic. It seems that scholars hold the belief that Mark was the first gospel ever written making it not so far from the time of the resurrection and so I personally think that Mark must be the most reliable. Looking into why Mark doesn't contain the virgin conception, I stumbled across scholar findings regarding other sources other than Mark that were responsible for both Matthew and Luke. For example, the Q-source and the M and L source. I don't know if I believe these theories but since Mark is the earliest, it sure does make sense. But my question still stands why didn't Mark contain the virgin birth given that it was the very first gospel? Why didn't any of the disciples have a more detailed account of the life of Jesus for that matter, I mean I think I would have given up everything to have wrote everything with every detail as possible if I was one of the disciples, wouldn't you? One part that makes me think about this, is when Jesus told his disciples who He was but didn't want them to let any one know until it was all done, if this was the case why didn't they mention each and everything once everything was done.

WE read in Is 7:14 (KJV): > Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Of course, the Gospels speak of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. But, before the Gospels were recorded, there must have been a way in which the people awaiting the Messiah became aware of the virgin birth of the Son of God. In fact, Joseph must have taken Mary home as his wife, on the initial days of her pregnancy, as we see in Mtt 1:24: > When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. That would mean that Mary, for the public eye, was a married woman staying with her husband before the childbirth. We do not see the Gloria- singing angels or the Wise Men from the East mentioning the virgin birth. On the contrary, the public referred to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Mtt 13: 55) In fact, very few people including Mary and Joseph, a couple of their relatives like Elizabeth and some of the disciples knew of the virgin birth of Jesus by the time he entered public life. But then, whom was the sign as mentioned in Is 7:14 meant for? My question therefore is: **How did the Virgin Birth of Jesus prove to be a “sign” as prophesied in Is 7:14?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

According to Catholicism: 1. **When Mary delivered Jesus from her womb, she labored without pain**; see Catholic Answers articles [Was Mary Free from Labor Pain?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-mary-free-from-labor-pain) and [Evidence for Mary's Painless Childbirth](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth) . 2. **Mary is the Queen of Heaven according to Rev 12:1-6**; see Catholic Answers article [Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-mary-the-woman-in-revelation-12) . Then how do Catholics explain Rev 12:1-6 which clearly refers to the birth of Jesus with the usual labor pain: > 1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 **She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth**. ... 5 **She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod.** And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.

Why didn't God strike Herod with Leprosy before he could to any harm to the newborns? He could prevent the death of many newborns and Joseph wouldn't have been forced to run to Egypt with Mary and baby Jesus. Matthew 2:16: >When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. In Matthew 2:18 it says that this needs to happen to fulfill the prophecy of Jeremiah: >A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more. But why?

According to the Scriptures that were given through Matthew, Jesus Christ was born to a virgin. > "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the > prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and > they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”)" > (Matthew.1:22-23) However, the Scriptures that were given through the apostle Paul mention that Jesus was born of a woman. > "4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a > woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we > might receive adoption to sonship.[b]" (Galatians.4:4-5) Scriptures do not contradict. But the above two messages seem to contradict with each other. If they do not truly contradict with each other then how can they be reconciled?

Luke's Gospel tells us simply that Jesus was born to Mary and placed in a manger. It doesn't say if it was an easy or difficult birth, who helped deliver the baby, and so on. I want to write a reflection, but make sure I do not make obvious false statements though lack of knowledge. I can see two sources of information: 1. The bible. We know there are many prophecies about Jesus, including several about his birth. Are there any which would specifically address my examples above? Is there any scriptural reason to believe Mary had any more or less a painful birth than would be normal for instance? 2. Historical knowledge. Do we have reasonable knowledge of the culture of the time what giving birth was like? Would the husband be present, who would act as midwife in this situation? Of course medicine was far less advanced. There are many details which are unknowable, but I want to be able to paint as realistic and biblically justified a picture as possible. As a counter-example, the carol "Away in a Manger" includes lyrics: > But little Lord Jesus / No crying he makes This seems quite unlikely to me, but just in case there is an obscure prophecy "the Son of man will make no cry" I want to avoid provable errors.

Was Jesus subject to original sin or because he was born of the Holy Spirit and of Mary he was not born with a sin nature?

According to the early church fathers, why did God decide that Jesus would be born of a virgin? I would imagine that someone like Augustine would say that it has something to do with why he is unstained from original sin, but the Bible does not explicitly say this. What are some of the early interpretations?

I am researching prophecies about the virgin birth of Jesus in the Old Testament and am currently trying to find answers on specific issues. **Genesis 16:10; 24:60; 4:25; Leviticus 22:13; 1 Samuel 2:20-21.** The above verses talk about women and their "seed". How do these verses and prophecies agree with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 if this verse refers to the virgin birth? And how does the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 differ from the 'seed of' the women mentioned in all the other Old Testament verses? Can anyone enlighten me as to how these verses fit together?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. From a scientific perspective, this means that he would have had no genetic material provided from a male parent. So my question is, have there been any Christian writings on how this worked genetically, i.e. what we would find if we had a DNA sample of Jesus? One possibility is that God might have arranged Jesus to be genetically like what a biological son of Joseph and Mary would have been like. Are there any Christian writings that suggest that Jesus physically resembled his adopted father Joseph? Or did he only bear a resemblance to Mary? Note that I don't want speculation, I just want to know what Christians have already said about this subject.

Matthew and Luke each open with an account of Jesus' miraculous virginal conception and birth . The virgin birth is widely seen as an essential belief in Christianity, being found for example in the Apostles' Creed . Numerous passages in Paul's letters explicate what has been called wisdom Christology , which includes belief in a pre-existent and divine or semi-divine Christ, and he directly references Jesus' birth once . But he never mentions the virgin birth, leading some to claim that he knew of no virgin birth tradition. See for example pages 108–109 of Jesuit priest John McKenzie 's book *The New Testament Without Illusion *: > If Matthew, chapter 1, and Luke, chapter 1, were missing from the New Testament, there would be no biblical mention of the virgin birth. ... Paul, the earliest of the New Testament writers, does not mention the virgin birth, in spite of an excellent opportunity to mention it in Galatians 4:4. > > The argument from silence is generally regard as invalid when one deals with documents, unless it can be shown conclusively that the writer could not have omitted the item in question had he known it. This cannot be shown for the virgin birth. But the omission does raise speculations, as I said. The event is unusual enough for one to wonder why an author who knew of it would not mention it; and it seems that those who maintain that Mark, John and Paul knew of the virgin birth owe their readers some explanation why these authors thought it was not important enough to deserve mention. > > On the other hand, those (like me) who solve the problem of the silence of all New Testament writers except Matthew and Luke by ay asserting that all the writers except these two never heard of the virgin birth also owe their readers some explanation of the supposed ignorance. This explanation I shall attempt. How do those who hold that Jesus' mother literally gave birth to him without having had intercourse explain why Paul failed to mention it? What is an **overview** of their arguments?

According to Brigham Young, the second prophet and president of the LDS church: > "The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of > our children; it was the result of **natural action.** He partook of flesh > and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." > > **(Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).** > > "I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great > deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and > for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." > **(Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).** According to Orson Pratt the original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: > The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. > Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, > must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and > Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the > lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it > would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed > her or begat the Savior unlawfully. > **(Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)** According to Luke 1:26-28: > 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. > 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The > Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, > > 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom > will never end.” > > 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” > > 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the > power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born > will be called[a] the Son of God. > > 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is > going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be > unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will > ever fail.” Since Brigham Young says Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost and Orson Pratt says Jesus required a mother and a father, does that mean the Virgin Birth spoken about in the Bible is refuted from an LDS perspective?

Science states that the mother contributes an X chromosome, while the father contributes either an X or a Y chromosome. If the father contributes a Y chromosome, the fetus will develop into a male (excluding anomalies); if the father contributes an X chromosome, the fetus will develop into a female (excluding anomalies). According to Wikipedia’s entry on “XY sex-determination system ,” it states, >In humans and many other species of animals, the father determines the sex of the child. In the XY sex-determination sys[tem, the father contr]ibutes either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome, resulting in female (XX) or male (XY) offspring, respectively. Since the Lord Jesus Christ had no human biological father, how is the determination of his male gender explained by Catholic apologists? Edit: If you watch this YouTube video , @[2:57](https://youtu.be/ZFgYZn_XXzA?t=2m57s), you will see that Tim Staples (from Catholic Answers) offers some speculation on the subject, but does not go any further. I am curious if there are some Catholic apologists who have actually discussed the matter in depth.