In this section you can write a comment with any question you may have about Christianity, and we, within our capabilities, will give you an answer.
If you are a Catholic but need clarification, if you are a Protestant and you think you must correct a Catholic error, if you are an agnostic who has not give up in your search for the truth, or if you are simply a Christian but have questions or want to dig deeper, do not be afraid and ask.
When Thomas saw Jesus and still doubted, Jesus did not just reproach him for his lack of faith; he took his hand and asked him to put his finger into his wound. This is how faith problems are resolved, addressing them directly instead of trying to ignore it for fear of losing faith… or discovering it.
Leave your question below (it will be published after review):
Please maintain a respectful tone; offensive comments or those in all caps will be ignored. We appreciate it if you indicate your religion or denomination to help us better focus our response.
previous users’ questions
-
the manna was grains of wheat?
LikeLike
-
No, the manna that the Israelites ate during their journey through the desert, as described in the Bible, was not grains of wheat. According to the book of Exodus (16:14-15), manna is described as a fine, flaky substance, like frost on the ground, which appeared after the dew evaporated. The Israelites did not know what it was, and they asked, “What is it?” (in Hebrew, “man hu”), which is where the name “manna” comes from.
Exodus 16:31: “The house of Israel called its name manna; it was like coriander seed, white, and it tasted like wafers made with honey.”
Numbers 11:7: “Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium.” Bdellium is a resin that has a translucent or whitish color, sometimes with a yellowish tint. This further suggests a pale or light-colored substance. it further says that the Israelites ground it or pounded it in mortars, then baked it into cakes.
LikeLike
-
-
In the early church were there priests or pastors and if there were, were they called father?
LikeLike
-
In the early Church, there were priests, but they were not initially referred to as “priests” in the same way we understand the term today. The early Christian community was organized around bishops, presbyters (which is where the word “priest” comes from), and deacons.
- Bishops (from the Greek episkopos, meaning “overseer”) were seen as the primary leaders, responsible for teaching, governing, and sanctifying their local communities.
- Presbyters (from the Greek presbyteros, meaning “elder”) assisted the bishops in their duties and were responsible for celebrating the Eucharist, teaching, and pastoral care.
- Deacons (from the Greek diakonos, meaning “servant”) helped with the charitable work and service to the community.
As the Church developed, the role of the presbyter became more clearly defined as that of a priest, especially in relation to celebrating the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. This role mirrors the priesthood found in the Old Testament but with a new focus on Christ as the High Priest.
Regarding the title “Father,” it was not widely used at the very beginning of Christianity. However, by the early centuries, spiritual leaders like monks, abbots, and priests were often referred to as “Father” (Abba in Aramaic or Greek). This was a term of respect and affection, acknowledging their spiritual fatherhood in guiding the faithful. St. Paul himself, in his letters, refers to his spiritual children, saying, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15).
So, while the structure of Church leadership included priests, they were not immediately called “Father,” but the term developed as the Church grew and evolved. It became a way to honor the spiritual authority and guidance provided by these leaders.
As for the issue of calling priests “father”, you can check our article about it. It is written in Spanish:
But you can check this automatic translation here:
https://apologia21-com.translate.goog/2014/05/25/a-nadie-llameis-padre-en-la-tierra-y-a-los-curas/?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wappLikeLike
-
-
Mary and Joseph were related?
LikeLike
-
According to some Christian traditions they might have been related. In Jewish culture it was common for people to marry within their extended families or tribes, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they were somehow related. Also, some shcolars understand Matthew’s geneaolgy of Jesus as the lineage of Joseph and Lukes’s that of Mary, and that would imply they shared may ancestors. And Nazareth was a very small village, so most people are related in some way.
However, it is important to note that the Bible does not provide a clear statement on whether Mary and Joseph were closely related, so this idea remains a matter of speculation based on cultural practices and genealogical interpretation.
LikeLike
-
-
What was the function of deaconesses in the early church?
LikeLike
-
In the early Christian church, deaconesses played a vital role in ministry in areas that required the involvement of women due to cultural and social norms. However, they were not involved in liturgical practices, so we should not confuse them with male deacons, who received holy orders like priests and bishops. Those who equate deaconesses with male deacons may be misled by the terminology, since in Greek, “deacon” (masculine) and “deaconess” (feminine) both derive from the word meaning “helper” or “servant.” While the term “deacon” quickly acquired a technical meaning as part of the male orders, the term “deaconess” as applied to women remained closer to the original meaning of “helper,” since their functions were practical rather than sacramental. Those who seek to find grounds for “ordaining” female deacons (deaconesses) by looking at the early Church are misinterpreting the texts and the Greek terminology. This does not diminish the important role that deaconesses played, but it must be emphasized that it had nothing to do with holy orders, which were reserved for men, as they are today.
Their primary functions included:
- Assisting with Baptism of Women: This was for reasons of modesty, since in the early church, baptism often involved full immersion.
-
Caring for the Sick and Needy: Especially focusing on the care of sick, poor, and elderly women.
-
Instruction of Female Catechumens: This was particularly important for maintaining gender segregation while ensuring that women received proper religious education.
-
Oversight of Women in the Church: They were responsible for maintaining order among women during church services and gatherings.
-
Witnessing and Reporting: Deaconesses were involved in matters concerning women within the church, such as cases of accusations or disciplinary actions, where a woman’s perspective or testimony was needed.
The role of deaconesses was generally considered subordinate to that of male deacons, yet it was crucial for the effective ministry of the church, particularly in ensuring that women were properly ministered to within the social context of the time. Their functions eventually declined in prominence as the church’s structure evolved, especially as the role of women in ministry became more restricted in later centuries.
This revision makes your points clearer and ensures that the historical and theological distinctions between male deacons and deaconesses are accurately presented.
LikeLike
-
-
When will you publish more articles?
LikeLike
-
As soon as we can. Our articles are the result of in-depth research, and we strive to make their arguments solid, addressing all the objections we can anticipate. We could write them in a couple of days and publish them, but they go through a lengthy process to ensure that we put forth the best of our abilities. Then, we have to translate them into English, trying not to lose or distort any details or nuances. But you can be sure that, little by little, we will keep publishing more articles. In fact, a new one is about to be released. Thank you for your patience.
LikeLike
-
-
What were Jesus and Mary like physically?
LikeLike
-
The Bible does not provide any details about Jesus’ physical appearance. Some people have speculated that Jesus might have been unattractive, citing Isaiah’s description of the Suffering Servant as support for this claim. However, this is a misunderstanding. Isaiah’s description refers to Jesus’ appearance on the cross (as in “Ecce Homo”), not his ordinary look. Early Christians often depicted Jesus idealistically, drawing inspiration from the appearance of Apollo, the God of the Sun.
However, around the 4th century, a new iconography emerged, depicting Jesus with long hair, a beard, a long face, and a prominent nose—an image that has endured to this day. This more realistic depiction is believed to have been influenced by the widespread veneration of the Holy Shroud (now in Turin), which was revered as the Holy Face of Christ. According to this image, Jesus was tall (around 1.80 meters), strong, very fit, with long hair and a long face.
As for the appearance of the Virgin Mary, we have no direct descriptions. However, since Jesus was genetically descended solely from Mary, it’s plausible that her features would have been similar to his, adjusted for gender. If Jesus was handsome with a perfect male physique, it is reasonable to think that Mary was also attractive, with a perfect female form. The numerous apparitions of Mary throughout history consistently depict her as extremely beautiful in a motherly way, which may reflect her appearance in glory rather than her earthly form. The early Christians were less concerned with physical appearance, focusing instead on spiritual virtues.
LikeLike
-
-
If you mean that Jesus and Mary must have looked like modern-day Middle Eastern people… not exactly. The population in that area has changed significantly since the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jews. Even before that, the gene pool in Galilee during Jesus’ time was already quite mixed. The northern tribes had mostly been deported, and people from other nations and ethnicities were brought in to replace them. Greeks had also arrived, and Jews from the south had migrated north during the Maccabean period. Therefore, you would expect to see a variety of different ethnicities and racial mixes in Nazareth, throughout Galilee, and, to a lesser extent, in the rest of Palestine in the first century. After that period, many Jews were removed from the land, and other peoples (Arabs, Turks, and many others) settled there in different waves. Consequently, modern Middle Eastern people are not necessarily a good model for imagining Jesus and Mary’s appearance—although they might be the closest approximation we have, perhaps (or perhaps not).
LikeLike
-
There were image links along with the comment, I don’t know why they weren’t published.
LikeLike
-
Links are mostly considered spam by WordPress
LikeLike
-
-
-
That’s an interesting question and a source of misunderstandings.
In the early church, the Eucharist and the agape (or “love feast”) were related but distinct practices, although they were often celebrated together in the same gathering.
The Eucharist, also known as the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion (later known also as “the mass”), is the Christian sacrament commemorating the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples and the actualization of the sacrifice due to God. It focused on the consecration and consumption of bread and wine, representing the body and blood of Christ.
The agape feast, or “love feast,” was a communal meal shared among early Christians that expressed fellowship, unity, and mutual love within the community. It was more of a social and charitable gathering, where food was shared among the participants, often with an emphasis on including the poor and needy.
The agape feast was characterized by its communal and inclusive nature, fostering a sense of solidarity and brotherhood among believers.
In the earliest Christian communities, particularly in the context of house churches, the Eucharist and the agape feast were often celebrated together as part of a single gathering. The agape meal would typically occur first, followed by the more solemn Eucharistic celebration.
However, as the church developed, concerns arose regarding the proper conduct and reverence of these gatherings. Issues such as social divisions, improper behavior, and the need for a more structured liturgy led to a gradual separation of the Eucharist from the agape meal.
By the time of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, the Eucharist began to be celebrated independently of the agape feast in many Christian communities. This separation was largely driven by the desire to maintain the sanctity and focus of the Eucharistic rite.
The agape meal continued in some form in various Christian traditions (special days or events in some Orthodox churches, known as “koinonikon”, and even inside the Catholic world in some events and celebrations) but eventually declined in prominence, especially as the Eucharistic celebration became more formalized and structured within the liturgy of the church.
In summary, while the Eucharist and the agape feast were related and often celebrated together in the early church, they were distinct practices with different focuses—one sacramental and the other communal. Over time, these two practices became more clearly differentiated and eventually separated in Christian liturgical practice.
LikeLike
the woman of revelation 12 is Mary ,Israel , or the church?
LikeLike
-
All three. All the characters in this scene (and many others in Revelation) have multiple levels of symbolism.
LikeLike
Did the early church believe in purgatory?
LikeLike
-
But of course, otherwise praying for the death would make no sense, since people who are bound to heaven don’t need our prayers and people who are bound to hell can’t make use of them. More information in this article:
-
in Spanish: https://apologia21.com/2019/01/12/el-purgatorio-realidad-o-mito/
-
Automatic translation into English: https://apologia21-com.translate.goog/2019/01/12/el-purgatorio-realidad-o-mito/?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=wapp
LikeLike
-
the orthodox church is also the church of Christ?
LikeLike
-
From an official Catholic point of view, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Orthodox Church is indeed a true Church of Christ. This recognition is rooted in the shared heritage of apostolic succession, valid sacraments, and adherence to many of the same core doctrines established in the early Church.
Although there are some little divergences in doctrine, the Orthodox Church is considered schismatic, not heretic.
The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) explicitly states that the Eastern Orthodox Churches possess true sacraments, above all the priesthood and the Eucharist, and are therefore true particular Churches. The Catholic Church sees the Orthodox Churches as «sister Churches» and recognizes that they share much in common, including the same basic creedal beliefs and sacramental life.
However, the Catholic Church also believes that full communion is currently lacking between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches due to historical schisms and differences in certain doctrines and governance, particularly regarding the role of the Pope. The Catholic Church continues to pray and work for the restoration of full unity with the Orthodox Churches, recognizing that they are integral parts of the universal Church of Christ.
LikeLike
¿Were there monks, nuns, monasteries or convents in the early church?
LikeLike
-
In the early church, there were no formalized monks, nuns, monasteries, or convents as we understand them today. However, the roots of monasticism began to develop during this period.
In the first few centuries after Christ, certain Christians sought to live lives of greater spiritual discipline and separation from worldly concerns. These individuals often lived as ascetics, practicing severe self-discipline and renouncing material comforts to focus more fully on their spiritual lives. Some of these ascetics chose to live alone as hermits in the deserts or remote areas, a practice that became particularly popular in Egypt and Syria.
By the 3rd and 4th centuries, these solitary ascetics began to form loose communities where they could support one another in their spiritual practices. This was the beginning of what we now recognize as monasticism.
The first organized monastic community is often attributed to Pachomius, an Egyptian monk who, in the early 4th century, established a communal monastic life, where monks lived together under a common rule. This is considered the beginning of cenobitic monasticism, where monks live in community rather than in solitude.
LikeLike
the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 is a translation error?
LikeLike
-
If one were to assume a translation error, it would have been made by Luke, who translated the prophecy into Greek using the word “parthenos,” meaning “virgin.” The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is “almah,” which means “young woman” and, like its English equivalent, is somewhat ambiguous; it can refer to either a young woman or a virgin. However, Jews of the first century (and even earlier) considered this prophecy Messianic and interpreted the meaning as “virgin.” This understanding is reflected in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures made before Christ), which translated “almah” as “parthenos,” meaning “virgin.” This translation is, therefore, not erroneous but aligns with the interpretation of that time.
It’s important to note that this prophecy, like many others, had both a short-range and a long-range fulfillment. In the long-range, it referred to the coming Messiah. In the short-range, it may have referred to the future son of King Ahaz, who had many wives, many of whom were young. Consider the nature of the sign: If God were merely indicating that a young wife of the king would bear a child, would that truly be a significant sign? Given that this was a common occurrence for the king, it would hardly qualify as a divine sign.
However, even if one prefers to think that the short-range prophecy referred to a young wife, the long-term prophecy clearly referred to a virgin, as indicated by Luke’s account. For Christians, Luke’s translation is authoritative. For non-Christians Luke’s authority may be low, but then again, this issue is irrelevant for them.
LikeLike
-
In the Septuagint they use the word parthenos to refer to Dinah after being raped by Shechem
LikeLike
-
- Isaiah 7:14: “Almah” vs. “Parthenos”
Hebrew Text (Masoretic): The key Hebrew word is עַלְמָה (ʿalmāh). It literally means “a young woman (of marriageable age).” By itself, ʿalmāh does not always overtly say whether the woman is a virgin or not, but in many Hebrew contexts (especially in the culture of the time) it implies virginity. It’s a bit like the English “damsel” or “maiden”, they originally meant just “unmarried young girl”, but were (and are) very often used with the meaning of “virgin”.
Greek (Septuagint) Translation:
In Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint translators used παρθένος (parthénos). This Greek word most often means “virgin,” though in antiquity it could sometimes (rarely) be used more broadly for a “maiden,” even if she was not strictly a virgin.New Testament Usage:
The Gospel of Matthew (1:23) quotes Isaiah 7:14 using the same Greek word παρθένος (parthénos). Some modern discussions thus revolve around whether Isaiah originally intended “virgin” or simply “young woman,” and whether the LXX translators (and subsequently Matthew) “over-translated.” However, the ancient Jewish translators evidently thought that Isaiah’s prophecy did indeed have the sense of “virgin,” and so they chose παρθένος.- The Question About Dinah (Genesis 34)
It is often claimed online that the Septuagint also calls Dinah (who has just been raped by Shechem) a “παρθένος.” This is used as an example that “παρθένος” need not mean “virgin.” However, here is what we actually see in the standard LXX text of Genesis 34:
Standard LXX of Gen 34:2–4
The Greek refers to Dinah variously as Δίνα (Dinah) or “ἡ θυγάτηρ Ἰακώβ” (the daughter of Jacob), or “ἡ κόρη” (the girl/maiden).
The usual editions (Rahlfs, Göttingen) do not contain παρθένος for Dinah in verses 2–4. Instead, the LXX uses ἡ κόρη (“the girl”)—not ἡ παρθένος.
Possible Variants: Because ancient manuscripts vary, there may be obscure textual variants that used παρθένος for Dinah. (Occasionally, medieval or later manuscript glosses turned “the girl” into “the virgin.”) But in the main critical editions of the Septuagint used by scholars (and in modern published translations of the LXX), Dinah is not called a “parthenos” after her assault.Therefore, the common internet/handbook statement “the LXX calls Dinah ‘parthenos’ after she was raped” typically relies on
(a) confusion with a later/variant manuscript
(b) a secondhand claim
(c) mixing up references to other passages where παρθένος is used in a broader sense.- When Did People Start Doubting Mary’s Virginity?
After the Reformation:
– Virgin Birth: Even Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many other early Protestant Reformers defended Mary’s virginity in Jesus’s conception. Questioning the virgin birth (itself) is a much later development, mainly tied to post-Enlightenment rationalism (18th–19th centuries) and modernist biblical criticism.
– Perpetual Virginity: Luther and Calvin also spoke favorably about Mary’s perpetual virginity, though some Reformation-era voices and many later Protestants found that teaching less compelling over time.
– Modern Skepticism: More widespread skepticism about Mary’s virginity—at least about the miraculous side of it—arose in certain liberal Protestant circles especially in the 19th–20th centuries, influenced by naturalistic approaches to Scripture.- Summary
- Isaiah 7:14: The Hebrew ʿalmāh (“young woman”) was rendered as παρθένος (“virgin”) in the Septuagint. The New Testament author of Matthew follows that same tradition.
- Dinah in Gen 34: The widely circulated claim that the Septuagint explicitly calls Dinah a “παρθένος” after being raped does not appear in the main surviving LXX manuscripts. They consistently read “τὴν κόρην” (the girl) instead.
- Range of Meaning: While παρθένος usually means virgin, ancient Greek usage can occasionally be broader, calling someone a παρθένος even if virginity might be in doubt. However, the standard LXX text of Gen 34 does not do so in Dinah’s case.
- Thus, the question of whether Isaiah 7:14 is “mistranslated” does not hinge on Dinah’s story in the LXX. Rather, it’s a broader question of how ʿalmāh was understood in antiquity—where Jewish translators evidently saw (or intended) a nuance of virginity and conveyed it with παρθένος.
Early Christians always understood this “parthénos” from Matthew as meaning “virgin”, no doubt about it, and they got their knowledge from Jesus and the apostles themselves, so speculating with different meanings is not necessary. It wasn’t till long long after the Protestant Reformation when some Christian groups started to doubt about Mary’s virginity, so that idea may be consider a human modern innovation, not part of God’s revelation.
LikeLike
-
-
the hebrew word for virgin in betulah no almah
LikeLike
-
CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION: THE HEBREW WORD “ALMAH”
Building on the discussion in our previous response, we’ve already examined the key terms in Isaiah 7:14—almah in Hebrew and parthenos in the Septuagint. While “almah” carries some level of ambiguity, it is important to clarify what this ambiguity means in the context of ancient Jewish culture and how it was resolved through divine revelation in the New Testament.- “Almah” Is Ambiguous, but Not Neutral
The Hebrew word almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, refers to a “young woman of marriageable age.” In the cultural and religious context of ancient Israel, it would have been almost universally presumed that such a woman was a virgin. While “almah” does not explicitly define virginity with the same precision as the Hebrew word betulah, it carries the implication of virginity unless the context explicitly states otherwise—which Isaiah 7:14 does not.
Thus, the “ambiguity” of almah is not a 50/50 uncertainty but rather a slight openness that allows for other readings. For an Israelite reader of Isaiah’s time, the presumption would lean strongly toward the inclusion of virginity in the meaning of almah, even if it wasn’t stated with absolute linguistic precision.
- God Resolves the Ambiguity in the New Testament
As Christians, we believe that only God can fully reveal the meaning of prophecy, even beyond the understanding of the prophet himself. In the New Testament, God clarifies the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 in two key ways:
In Matthew 1:23, the Gospel quotes Isaiah 7:14 using the Greek word parthenos, which explicitly means “virgin.” This leaves no doubt that the prophecy foretold the Virgin Birth of Christ.
In Luke 1:26–35, the Annunciation narrative confirms Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy with divine authority.
This divine clarification definitively resolves any lingering ambiguity in almah, showing that God intended it to mean “virgin” in the context of the Messiah’s birth.- The Septuagint: A Pre-Christian Jewish Interpretation
The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (3rd century BC), rendered almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos. This is highly significant because it shows that Jewish scholars of the time—still under divine guidance as God’s chosen people—understood the prophecy to refer to a virgin.
It is important to note that this interpretation predates Christianity by several centuries, meaning it was not influenced by Christian theology. Unlike later Jewish interpretations (after the rejection of Christ), which are no longer divinely inspired, the Septuagint reflects the understanding of the Jewish people when they were still the custodians of God’s revelation. As such, it carries significant weight for Christians in understanding the original intent of Isaiah’s prophecy.
- “Parthenos” and the Church’s Teaching
The Greek word parthenos, used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament, most often means “virgin.” While there are rare cases in Greek literature where it might refer to a young woman, its dominant usage refers to virginity. This is how the early Church universally understood it, and this interpretation is reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgy, and the creeds.
Even if linguists were to debate the nuances of parthenos, the Church’s unanimous belief from the very beginning leaves no room for doubt. The apostles, taught directly by Christ, handed down this understanding, which the Church has consistently proclaimed: Isaiah’s prophecy foretold that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
CONCLUSION
While almah in Isaiah 7:14 is not as explicit as betulah, its cultural context implies virginity. This presumption was affirmed by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, who rendered it as parthenos long before Christianity. Finally, the New Testament definitively clarifies the prophecy, as God Himself, through Matthew and Luke, reveals that it refers to the Virgin Birth of Christ. For Christians, this threefold testimony—Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint, and the New Testament—is conclusive. The Virgin Birth is not only linguistically plausible but theologically certain.LikeLike
- “Almah” Is Ambiguous, but Not Neutral
https://www.afii.org/pgnote.html
Summary of the linked article:
The following analysis comes from an Orthodox Jewish translator who, after decades of study immersed in Hasidic communities, set out to highlight the original meaning of the Scriptures from a traditional Jewish perspective. His intention is obviously not to favor Christian interpretations but to clarify the precise meaning of key Hebrew terms. This makes his testimony particularly valuable, as his approach seeks to remain faithful to the text without external influences.
The article argues that the Hebrew term almah in Isaiah 7:14 should be translated as “virgin” and not merely as “young woman.” To support this position:
Biblical context: It is noted that in every biblical use of the term almah, it never refers to a married woman or one who is not a virgin. Therefore, the context reinforces that the term implies virginity.
Equivalence with betulah: Although betulah also means “virgin,” almah is considered more specific in the context of a young virgin of marriageable age, whereas betulah sometimes requires additional clarifications in the text to confirm virginity (e.g., in Genesis 24:16).
Testimony of ancient translators: The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jewish scholars before Christ, translates almah as parthenos, which means “virgin” in Greek. This fact is used to support the claim that ancient Jews understood the term in this way.
Messianic implications: The article points out that Isaiah 7:14 prophesies the birth of the Messiah and that a miraculous sign, such as a child being born to a “virgin,” carries significant weight, whereas “young woman” would lack the extraordinary character required of such a prophecy.
In summary, the translator defends the translation of almah as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, aligning with traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations and emphasizing that both the biblical context and ancient translations support this reading.
LikeLike
Jews claim that Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. What do you say about this?
LikeLike
Before Christianity, the Jews themselves interpreted Isaiah 7:14 in a messianic way, as evidenced by the Septuagint, where they translated almah as virgin (parthenos). Later, they changed their stance to avoid the connection with Jesus. It is true that the prophecy has an immediate fulfillment in the time of Ahaz, but this does not exclude a deeper meaning. In Scripture, many prophecies have both a near fulfillment and a definitive one. The Church recognizes that Isaiah 7:14 refers both to an event in Ahaz’s time and its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, the true ‘God with us’ (Matthew 1:23). You can read more about biblical typology here:: https://english.apologia21.com/2025/01/25/mary-in-the-bible-typology/
LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to maronite voice Cancel reply