Why?

It is God , we should be concerned about knowing and devoted to, not the characters mentioned with God.

But due to sure incompetence, the Roman "pagans" "ASSUMED", to have a God on the present scene means he had to be born, first.

Nowhere, does it mention, Melchizedek's origin. But, he was the first preacher, on the scene. Abraham's, personal preacher/teacher.

The answer is simply. This passage in Isaiah isn’t speaking about the Messiah or a virgin birth.

Let’s begin by examining the context of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. In the same way that America and Korea were divided into North and South during their Civil wars, at this point in Jewish history the Jewish nation was divided into two kingdoms,[2] known as the Southern Kingdom of Judea and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Each kingdom had its own capital, king and enemies.

The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus.

God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.” Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God

will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.


Although Ahaz was an evil king, God would continue to protect Jerusalem in the merit of his righteous predecessors. When Ahaz ignores Isaiah’s warning the prophet tells him to request a sign from God. After Ahaz refuses this offer, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign despite his stubbornness.

He tells King Ahaz that:

“The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (?????????) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

Footnotes:

Isaiah 7:14 This prophecy of the virgin is declared in Matt 1:22, 23 to be fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. There has been a great deal of discussion over the Hebrew word found here for virgin (almah) and the word that Matthew uses (parthenos). The latter refers unambiguously to a virgin, while the former (almah) has been said to refer to a young woman, in contrast to the Hebrew word bethulah, which is the equivalent of the Gr parthenos. It has also been noted that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, has parthenos here for almah, and that Matt 1:23 is taken from the Septuagint. Some have wondered why the Septuagint translators used the more specific word parthenos. It is fair to say that this question is the result of oversimplifying the vocabulary and misinterpreting the distinctions. The Hebrew words almah and bethulah can actually refer to the same kind of woman; almah is a youthful woman of marriageable age, one who has not yet had her first child, while bethulah is one who has not been touched in an intimate way. Furthermore, in the present context it would be unthinkable to infer that the woman might have had sexual relations outside of marriage. So the well-known translation of “young woman” for almah, while technically not incorrect, can be viewed as too ambiguous for the Hebrew word and the context. Parthenos was an appropriate choice in the Greek. Another word, kore (for “girl”) could have been used, but it has a wider range of meaning than the Heb almah (Mark uses a related word, korasion, to translate Jesus’ Aramaic word talitha). It should also be acknowledged from a theological perspective that when Matthew cites the verse with parthenos, he thereby authenticates it as inspired

If Jesus was not born of a virgin---if Jesus had had a human for a father---He would not be the Incarnate Son of God.

Some say Jesus was only another man, albeit a perfect one, until John baptized Him, at which time He miraculously became the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. If this were true, (1) Jesus wouldn't be a begotten Son, only an adopted one like the rest of us, and (2) He would have to have become a totally different Person at that point. No, Jesus was born with God as His natural Father and Mary His natural mother, making Him 100% God and 100% man from the moment of His conception.

And Iam Resurrected, you have it backward---it is those who DO believe in the Church who are saved, and those who reject are the ones who are doomed. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

There is no need to assume that, Cup. Considering, "the real factual and original scrolls from (3) of the (4) Gospels, read like Mark. So there "never" was, a birth account in Matthew or Luke ,until they added it around 325 AD. So why speculate, what Christ was doing, around ages 13 to 30? When He clearly was doing, what he had done before, on His other physical appearances as God. Which is to, just, show up.

This time around, as the Messiah, to die for us.

Here are the verses originally used in the Gospels.
...
(6)
"I am come to do away with sacrfices, and if you cease not sacrificing,
the wrath of God will not cease from you."

*
And you say what, Ludlow?

Without the interpretations of the Catholic Church, the entity that put the Bible together in the first place, the Bible is a hodgepodge of real and apparent contradictions that can be made to say anything anybody wants it to say, and can be made to support any ism under the sun.

Iam, if tge Catholic Church pulled a demonic tussle with the Bible, why do you believe in the Bible at all?

Tell me this, LUD.

Why did the Catholics bastardized the "original bible" and then, turn around and make another bible version only for Catholics?

Not only did they "bastardized the TRUTH about God with His Original Scripture, then they made a COMPLETE FABRICATION, of the entire Holy Bible with the Catholic version of DEMONINC LIES!!

IF there ever was an example of BLASPHEMY ever committed documented in history. It definitely involved the Catholic Pagan Church of Demons and Liars!!

Go pray to another statue instead of GOD!!

paganism at its very finest, in a assembly called the "temple of God." Talk about BLASPHEMY!!

The Catholic Church did not bastardize the Bible. In fact it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together in the first place, at the Council of Hippo in the year 393. The Catholic Church never put out any translation for Catholics only. All translations the Catholic Church issued have always been available to the general public.

Did you quote the King James and Douay Rheims translations? News flash---the Douay Rheims translation came out first. And it wasn't for Catholics only, anyone could have read it, except you had to go to France to read it, because the Protestant king of England made Douay Rheims Bibles illegal in England and Ireland.

And what essential differences do you find in these two translations?