this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
985 points (98.9% liked)
Comic Strips
20970 readers
2670 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isaiah didn't talk about Mary or Jesus but talked about his own time. Messiah is this context meant savior in the political sense. It's not a prophecy for the distant future, only in the Septuagint much later. But don't take it from me, take it from Dan McClellan.
Frankly, I am not a scholar but a willing listener. So Dan probably knows better than me.
But what i don't understand about his point is the claim of mistranslation by using parthenos.
parthenos does seem to mean the same thing as almah
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/parthenos
https://biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm
I am very willing to accept that isaiah 7:14 wasn't talking about jesus, but like Dan says later authors do mean mary when talking about parthenos. So my point does seem to stand.
But let's say Dan is 100% correct, then almah got mistranslated and applied to Mary to fulfill the misunderstood prophecy and then my point is still kinda right that almah got mistranslated by Christians to made Mary a virgin.
In short, I think my point kinda stands either way, while I might picked a bad verse to make my case and my argument and understanding was slightly misguided.
I was reacting to the "Isaiah talks about Mary" part of your argument. I'm not a scholar either and I linked a very short video but in other contexts, Dan elaborates that the Greek has been used for a raped woman who therefore isn't a virgin anymore but the main meaning is virgin.
I'm not sure what your point was. I neither up nor downvoted your comment. But since the whole birth story is fabricated by arguably Christians, it either was by applying the mistranslation of Isaiah or, if the intended audience of the gospels understood it to mean "young woman", it was an even later invention. If your point is that Jesus wasn't the son of a virgin and never claimed to be, than sure.
That is my point, yes.
I am sorry if I wrote my comment in a way that sounded aggressive.
My point is basically, (as far as I am aware of) all the "virgin mary" claims come from translating a word (different words in different languages) which could mean young woman or virgin, while she was obviously pregnant, making 1 translation much more likely than the other one and Christians somehow choose "virgin".