[Enlil-An]

Youonly consulted English translations. I consulted as many as I could.
As I said, I'm waiting for anyone knowledgeable in Koine Greek to correct me, if I am wrong.

The translations you've consulted aren't wrong, your interpretation of the passage itself is. You're assuming that Joseph was originally heading for Nazareth in Galilee even though Matthew makes no indication of any such thing.

Out of curiosity, have you ready any who disagree?

Yes, I have. And their arguements (like yours) don't hold up against the evidence.

If there was only the one dream, then he was already instructed to go to the Galilee when he was in Egypt.

Very creative, but if we read the passage in sequence, there are two dreams. The second one was a warning, the first one wasn't. And, like I said, there is no indication in Matthew's gospel that Joseph was ever originally travelling to Galilee.

The majority of the Jerusalem Talmud was collected no later than the mid 3rd century AD.
Most of the traditions (which are part of the aggadic material) can be traced back to the 2nd temple era.

And how do they translate and interpret Isaiah 7:14?

Let us play at your game, I want to see hard and fast evidence that she understood the original context Isaiah intended.

It's very hypocritical of you to demand "hard and fast" evidence from me when you refuse to supply it yourself. And any evidence I present, you'll just twist it around anyway like you have been doing with the scriptures I've been quoting. Nevertheless, I will agree to humor you on one condition. I will post the exact words of Professor Fredriksen regarding Isaiah 7:14 typing it directly from her book if you will cut & paste (a much easier job) the parts of Josephus you believe vindicate your claims that Jews in Christ's time regularly feigned ignorance out of arrogance. Until then, take some of your own medicine: Paula Fredriksen From Jesus to Christ page 38.

HOW did he know she was a virgin, you can't tell just by looking.

Who told Isaiah she was a virgin? Certainly you're aren't accusing a man of God of...looking, are you?

If you want to play the eaxct wording game, it isn't sun child.

Click here and type in Samson. See for yourself: Search Baby Names and Meanings, Name Meanings, Meaning of Names

Well, the only Jewish evidence available would be thrown out by you for the same reasons you throw out the Arbel thing.

On the contrary, if Jewish people at anytime have interpreted the original Hebrew version (not the Greek Septuigent) of Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin giving birth to the God of the universe (a totally absurd idea for an ancient Israelite to believe), I would see that as powerful evidence that Matthew is right about that prophecy. The Mt Arbel thing is much more of a stretch.

You are assuming that Isaiah wanted to use a precise word.

If you were Isaiah, and received a revelation that a virgin was going to have a child, would you record this revelation of such an unprecidented event in Israel using the word virgin or would you use the more ambiguous phrase young woman? Think about it.

That chapter tells you nothing of how Isaiah prophecied?
2nd Nephi 11 doesn't either?

I have a strong feeling that you and I interpret scriptures very differently. So instead of asking me what I get out of it, why don't you just save us all some time tell us how you interpret it and how it relates to your current position?

What the issue really is, is your lack of faith in God, prefering to put your trust in the opinion of man.

You do understand what higher criticism is all about, don't you?

You are willing to take an academic's word on the scripture's over that of president Monson's?

I don't take anybody's word at face value unless that person has proven their credibility to me by demonstrating the truthfulness of their words. I take certain academics' at their word when discussing the historical research behind the ideas and meanings of many things in the Bible and I take a prophet at their word when they discuss feelings of the spirit and how to have a better relationship with God. When these people start making claims outside of their area of expertise, I take what they say as accurate if I already know it to be true or if it's something that can be verified.

HAHAHAHA Nazareth isn't? 1 Nephi 11:13.

My mistake. The bigger issue is your claim that 1 Ne. 11:13 shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem which it doesn't.

Alma does not name Bethlehem, but uses the phrase 'at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers'. That obviously is not Nazareth.

Two points: 1) That scripture isn't specific enough to exclude Nazareth because Alma was prophecying to people on another continant entirely. In that context, the "land of Jerusalem" could have easily meant "the land where all the Jews come from" which is the other side of the world. 2) It doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or not (judging by the gospel of John, I'm leaning toward the idea that Jesus was probably born at Nazareth). The point is that if he was born there, he didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke says he did because, not only do they contradict each other, but both accounts on their own are historically dubious.

It does not say that clearly. In fact, no miracles occur in the chapter. Verse 40 says "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, of a truth this is the Prophet."

Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, volgadon. This is what I mean by haggling. See for example: haggle definition | Dictionary.com The crowd of Jews who thought Jesus was the predicted Messiah weren't basing their belief of him on any tradition that the Messiah would come out of Nazareth or Galilee according to John. THAT is the critical point.