My guess is that people screwed around then, too…
And yet, “the young woman shall have a son” has a very different meaning from “the virgin shall have a son”.
Today it does, back then it didnt.
Young women had children all of the time, virgins not so much.
Not a young unmarried woman, not in that time and society, and if she did, she was ostracized.
Was Mary unmarried?
Oops I see that I am contributing to a hijack.
IIRC the penalty for getting caught was death, although when Joseph discovered his bride-to-be was well on the way to being a mother, he apparently considered keeping it quiet…
Doesn’t mean maidens didn’t do it, just that they had to be more cautious and risk-averse due to the punishments for getting caught.
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Newer translations say “privately divorce” rather than “put her away privily”. Thus demonstrating that in many cases the extremes of law were not necessarily carried out. Or would Joseph be afraid people would laugh at him too because of the scandal?
Nevertheless, he decided to listen to the voices in his head, and apparently the couple stayed together, suggesting Jesus spent some time doing the same work as his father.
I thought that was the whole point of this religion?
(I know what you meant, I just thought the phrasing was funny in this context.)
So, it was assumed that a young unmarried woman, i.e a maiden was a virgin.
Of course that wasnt always true, but that was the assumption.
How does calling someone the Messiah fulfil a prophecy that “they shall call his name Emmanuel”?
Moderating
This has strayed pretty well outside of FQ bounds. Due to the subject matter, I think this will do better if we move it to IMHO instead of trying to force the conversation back into the bounds of a purely factual discussion.
Moving from FQ to IMHO.
More to the point, “That virgin over there is going to have a son within the next year,” is different from “Within the next year, that woman over there is going to become pregnant and deliver a son while remaining a virgin.”
The passage literally says “young woman,” or something archaic like “maiden,” but the connotations of the word do support the translation “virgin.” However, the sentence structure calls for the first translation here, clearly implying that the woman who is currently a virgin is very soon not going to be one.
From what I understand, not necessarily in the Jewish community, as long as the union was not illegal.
I’m not sure where “they shall call his name Emmanuel,” [emp. added] is from, nor whether it is originally in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, but Isaiah 7:14 ends with “she shall name him: God is with us.” [emp. added]
It’s ambiguous as to whether “God is with us” (im a-nu el) is the thing she names him, or just a comment on the conclusion of the process-- or even just an exclamation at the fact of it.
It’d sure be funny if about 90% of Christianity’s hang-ups about sex can be attributed to a mistranslation between some ancient word for “young woman” and the equally ancient word for “virgin”.
Or more accurately, it’d be funny if that organization / belief system had no power in the modern world. Instead, it’s merely a massive tragedy still unfolding 2 millennia later.
Denying the permanent virginity of Mary was an excellent way to get your self killed for hundreds of years.
Even AI can answer that-
Calling someone the Messiah fulfills the prophecy “they shall call his name Emmanuel” because in the Bible, “Emmanuel” translates to “God with us,” and the Messiah is understood to be the embodiment of God dwelling among humanity, signifying that the Messiah is the prophesied figure who will be “God with us,” making the name “Emmanuel” a key identifier for the Messiah figure.
Today or 2000 years ago?
The ai answer literally makes no sense at all.
@RivkahChaya 's answer actually makes sense.