~
According to Matthew 1:19, Joseph’s first thought, because he was a “pious” man, was to “quietly divorce” Mary. That can’t be true. If he were a “pious” man, he would have married her immediately. Divorcing her “quietly” would have been the worst thing he could have done, as he would have had to take her before the Beit Din (Rabbi’s court, literally “house of judgment”) to get a divorce, even though they were “only” betrothed. It is impossible to divorce “quietly.”
The Beit Din would have thoroughly cross-examined the situation. What would have been his reasons for wanting a divorce? Because his betrothed was pregnant with a baby that is not his? Mary would have been considered a harlot, and quite possibly she would have been stoned to death.
Divorcing her quietly is not the Jewish way. However, it is the “Catholic” way, as pregnant women were often hidden away. But this is impossible with the Jewish Community. How does one hide a pregnant girl? Judaism does not allow for these things. Therefore, it makes no sense from a Jewish perspective that Joseph’s “piety” would cause him to “divorce her secretly.”
Another issue is that if G-d would have made her pregnant without first telling His authorities about it, He would have laid upon Mary too great a burden, as she would have given the “impression of sin (pregnant out of wedlock).” Jewish Halacha says we cannot give the appearance of evil: "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thessalonians 5:22).
In keeping with His own Law, G-d would have sent the angel to the correct authorities, as well as to Mary and Joseph, for “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, without revealing his secrets to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).
Source: http://countermissionary.org/articles/virginbirth.html
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Virgin Birth Account Reliable? Part II
~
Sayings of the Christian Church Fathers Concerning the Ebionites –
The new myth of the “Virgin Birth” was not accepted everywhere. Nazarenes and Ebionites regarded it as a pagan intrusion into their religion. In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr concedes that some of his co-religionists reject the divine fathering and Virgin Birth of Jesus, because they sound too much like pagan myth. Justin refers to the myth of Danae, who was impregnated by Zeus:
It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I, however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority of Christians/Nazarenes insist on this opinion.
Can we give credence to the Ebionites? It seems so. According to Dr. James Tabor, one can accurately refer to the Ebionite/Nazarene movement as those earliest, mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and led by James the Just, brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus. The Ebionites reject the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” or "divinity" of Jesus – being the child of a G-d and a mortal, used only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They rejected of the "doctrines and traditions of men,” which they believed had been illegally added to the pure Torah of Moses.
Eusebius: But the heresy of the Ebionites.... asserts that Messiah was born of Joseph and Mary, and supposes him to be a mere man, and insists upon an observance of the Torah too much after the manner of the Jews. (Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter XVII).
Irenaeus: The Ebionites assert that he was begotten by Joseph. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXI, 1) ...Jesus is a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of G-d (a divine Son, or born of a virgin). (On the Flesh of the Messiah, Chapter XIV, 4).
Origen: Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being the Messiah and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law; and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that he was begotten like other human beings. (Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter LXI.)
Source: http://countermissionary.org/articles/virginbirth.html
Sayings of the Christian Church Fathers Concerning the Ebionites –
The new myth of the “Virgin Birth” was not accepted everywhere. Nazarenes and Ebionites regarded it as a pagan intrusion into their religion. In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr concedes that some of his co-religionists reject the divine fathering and Virgin Birth of Jesus, because they sound too much like pagan myth. Justin refers to the myth of Danae, who was impregnated by Zeus:
It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I, however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority of Christians/Nazarenes insist on this opinion.
Can we give credence to the Ebionites? It seems so. According to Dr. James Tabor, one can accurately refer to the Ebionite/Nazarene movement as those earliest, mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and led by James the Just, brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus. The Ebionites reject the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” or "divinity" of Jesus – being the child of a G-d and a mortal, used only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They rejected of the "doctrines and traditions of men,” which they believed had been illegally added to the pure Torah of Moses.
Eusebius: But the heresy of the Ebionites.... asserts that Messiah was born of Joseph and Mary, and supposes him to be a mere man, and insists upon an observance of the Torah too much after the manner of the Jews. (Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter XVII).
Irenaeus: The Ebionites assert that he was begotten by Joseph. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXI, 1) ...Jesus is a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of G-d (a divine Son, or born of a virgin). (On the Flesh of the Messiah, Chapter XIV, 4).
Origen: Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being the Messiah and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law; and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that he was begotten like other human beings. (Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter LXI.)
Source: http://countermissionary.org/articles/virginbirth.html
Virgin Birth Account Reliable? Part I
~
(Luke 1:26-35) Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by G-d to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord G-d will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end...”
Up to here, there is no problem except that in order to call Joseph the father would mean perpetuating a lie.
Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of G-d.”
Verse 35 implies that she would conceive in a 'supernatural way'. However, the Angel speaks in a futuristic way: this and this will happen to you. Mary's reply in verse 34 is in the present/ past tense. She said, "How can this be, as I do not know a man?” that is, "I am not having sexual relations with anyone at the moment." But she would soon “know a man,” as she was betrothed to Joseph. Thus, the angel’s statement should not have surprised her, as he said, “you will [future] conceive”. There is nothing unusual about a woman soon to be married having a son in the near future, so her response is inappropriate. Up to this point the angel has not said anything about a “virgin birth.” It is very natural for an engaged woman to look forward to children, so why is she surprised that in the future she will conceive? If the angel had said, "You are pregnant", then her reply would have made sense. But he says, "You will be pregnant."
Also, these words the angel spoke to Mary did not come to pass in Jesus’ lifetime, thus they speak of a future event:
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord G-d will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end...’”
COULD THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH? YES.
One example of tampering is 1 John 5:7: “And there are three which bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This verse only appears in the Catholic Doue Bible (Latin Vulgate), and in the King James, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. You will not find this verse in any other translation of the New Testament. The reason why? Bible scholars tell us it was added in order to clarify Church doctrine - the doctrine of the Trinity, of course. This is one example of tampering. Then there are also the errors. For example, in Matthew 27 we read about Judas’s betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Verse 9 says: “Then what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, namely, I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel.” The problem here is that these words are not found in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah 11:12,13. This is a rather blatant mistake.
Source: http://countermissionary.org/articles/virginbirth.html
(Luke 1:26-35) Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by G-d to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord G-d will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end...”
Up to here, there is no problem except that in order to call Joseph the father would mean perpetuating a lie.
Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of G-d.”
Verse 35 implies that she would conceive in a 'supernatural way'. However, the Angel speaks in a futuristic way: this and this will happen to you. Mary's reply in verse 34 is in the present/ past tense. She said, "How can this be, as I do not know a man?” that is, "I am not having sexual relations with anyone at the moment." But she would soon “know a man,” as she was betrothed to Joseph. Thus, the angel’s statement should not have surprised her, as he said, “you will [future] conceive”. There is nothing unusual about a woman soon to be married having a son in the near future, so her response is inappropriate. Up to this point the angel has not said anything about a “virgin birth.” It is very natural for an engaged woman to look forward to children, so why is she surprised that in the future she will conceive? If the angel had said, "You are pregnant", then her reply would have made sense. But he says, "You will be pregnant."
Also, these words the angel spoke to Mary did not come to pass in Jesus’ lifetime, thus they speak of a future event:
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord G-d will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end...’”
COULD THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH? YES.
One example of tampering is 1 John 5:7: “And there are three which bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This verse only appears in the Catholic Doue Bible (Latin Vulgate), and in the King James, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. You will not find this verse in any other translation of the New Testament. The reason why? Bible scholars tell us it was added in order to clarify Church doctrine - the doctrine of the Trinity, of course. This is one example of tampering. Then there are also the errors. For example, in Matthew 27 we read about Judas’s betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Verse 9 says: “Then what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, namely, I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel.” The problem here is that these words are not found in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah 11:12,13. This is a rather blatant mistake.
Source: http://countermissionary.org/articles/virginbirth.html
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Original Sin and the Virgin Birth
~
Although the concept of the original sin might bear a symbolic tone referring to the initial “fall of man”; it nevertheless is another lie, a false doctrine created by the so called Christian Church Fathers. In fact, the words "Original Sin" doesn’t even exist in the Bible or Jewish writings. Sin is defined as a “willful” act that one consciously chooses to neglect the law of YHVH. For us to born into sin makes sin a misfortune and thus we can put blame on G-d for our action -- for if men are born with a sinful nature, who is to blame?
Saint Augustine thought Adam's original sin was caused by Adam having sex with Eve at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve was tempted by the Serpent with sexual knowledge which led to her and Adam engaging in sex prematurely. This “Original Sin” was now transmitted through the mother’s womb and by it, tainted all human beings leaving them incapable of choosing good over evil. It also denied man the responsibility of choosing his own spiritual destiny. Thus we have a perfect set up for the "virgin birth" concept.
And if there was any truth to the original sin, then was Yeshua born as a sinner? After all, he was born to an earthly mother, Mariam who too would have been born into the original sin concept.
Although the concept of the original sin might bear a symbolic tone referring to the initial “fall of man”; it nevertheless is another lie, a false doctrine created by the so called Christian Church Fathers. In fact, the words "Original Sin" doesn’t even exist in the Bible or Jewish writings. Sin is defined as a “willful” act that one consciously chooses to neglect the law of YHVH. For us to born into sin makes sin a misfortune and thus we can put blame on G-d for our action -- for if men are born with a sinful nature, who is to blame?
Saint Augustine thought Adam's original sin was caused by Adam having sex with Eve at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve was tempted by the Serpent with sexual knowledge which led to her and Adam engaging in sex prematurely. This “Original Sin” was now transmitted through the mother’s womb and by it, tainted all human beings leaving them incapable of choosing good over evil. It also denied man the responsibility of choosing his own spiritual destiny. Thus we have a perfect set up for the "virgin birth" concept.
And if there was any truth to the original sin, then was Yeshua born as a sinner? After all, he was born to an earthly mother, Mariam who too would have been born into the original sin concept.
Genesis 3:15 and the Virgin Birth
~
If one is to make a link between Genesis 3:15 and the virgin birth several questions must first be asked, such as; why is the word "Zera" (seed) is masculine? And why does scripture in almost every instance seem to allude to word zera as being sperm from the man's line? Third and most importantly, why does the genealogy of BOTH Matthew and Luke refer to Joseph's line rather than Mary's? Even 2 Tim 2:8 alludes to the sperm (zera) of being from the Joseph's line whose genealogy traces back to King David.
II Tim 2:8 "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed (zera) of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel"
John Keyser of “hope of Israel” website writes:
Genesis 3:15 is simply saying that from Eve's offspring (the HUMAN race, NOT some code word for Mary's egg) would arise one or possibly many (Messiah or the "Israel" of YEHOVAH God) that will crush the head of Satan. There is nothing mysterious or mystical at all about the clear and simple meaning of the verse. All mankind were offspring of Adam and Eve. The idea promoted by the virgin birth adherents, which is that Genesis 3:15 represents some mysterious "code" that negates ALL the subsequent prophecies showing that Messiah would be a descendant of King David through his father, is an outlandish assumption and is shown to be an unparalleled attempt at deception by traditional Christian leaders. Also, since Eve's offspring are HUMAN BEINGS, the "God in the flesh" teaching is further weakened since IF the Messiah is "God", he is NOT human, despite the blasphemous verbal gymnastics conducted by those that promote one can be both human and God. This particular misrepresentation of Scripture (Gen. 3:15) is one of those false doctrines for which we show little patience towards its promoters due to their intent to demolish the clear Scriptural context just so they can salvage a primary lie the great harlot hopes to promote.
The Scriptures VERY CLEARLY prove, in case after case after case, that one's genealogy is traced THROUGH THE FATHER. It is for this reason, for instance, that we read in Kings and Chronicles instances of where the sons of Kings were killed by wicked rulers in an attempt to prevent the seed of David from continuing on as kings of Judah, and where YEHOVAH God allowed the sons of various wicked men to be killed in order to destroy their seed (eliminate their future offspring). Obed, the Israeli grandfather of King David, had Ruth, a Moabite, as his mother. Similarly Rahab, the non-Israelite harlot, is an ancestor of the Messiah. However, since it is ALWAYS the father that determines one's Biblical heritage, the non-Israelite status of these women is meaningless.”
If one is to make a link between Genesis 3:15 and the virgin birth several questions must first be asked, such as; why is the word "Zera" (seed) is masculine? And why does scripture in almost every instance seem to allude to word zera as being sperm from the man's line? Third and most importantly, why does the genealogy of BOTH Matthew and Luke refer to Joseph's line rather than Mary's? Even 2 Tim 2:8 alludes to the sperm (zera) of being from the Joseph's line whose genealogy traces back to King David.
II Tim 2:8 "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed (zera) of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel"
John Keyser of “hope of Israel” website writes:
Genesis 3:15 is simply saying that from Eve's offspring (the HUMAN race, NOT some code word for Mary's egg) would arise one or possibly many (Messiah or the "Israel" of YEHOVAH God) that will crush the head of Satan. There is nothing mysterious or mystical at all about the clear and simple meaning of the verse. All mankind were offspring of Adam and Eve. The idea promoted by the virgin birth adherents, which is that Genesis 3:15 represents some mysterious "code" that negates ALL the subsequent prophecies showing that Messiah would be a descendant of King David through his father, is an outlandish assumption and is shown to be an unparalleled attempt at deception by traditional Christian leaders. Also, since Eve's offspring are HUMAN BEINGS, the "God in the flesh" teaching is further weakened since IF the Messiah is "God", he is NOT human, despite the blasphemous verbal gymnastics conducted by those that promote one can be both human and God. This particular misrepresentation of Scripture (Gen. 3:15) is one of those false doctrines for which we show little patience towards its promoters due to their intent to demolish the clear Scriptural context just so they can salvage a primary lie the great harlot hopes to promote.
The Scriptures VERY CLEARLY prove, in case after case after case, that one's genealogy is traced THROUGH THE FATHER. It is for this reason, for instance, that we read in Kings and Chronicles instances of where the sons of Kings were killed by wicked rulers in an attempt to prevent the seed of David from continuing on as kings of Judah, and where YEHOVAH God allowed the sons of various wicked men to be killed in order to destroy their seed (eliminate their future offspring). Obed, the Israeli grandfather of King David, had Ruth, a Moabite, as his mother. Similarly Rahab, the non-Israelite harlot, is an ancestor of the Messiah. However, since it is ALWAYS the father that determines one's Biblical heritage, the non-Israelite status of these women is meaningless.”
Does the Virgin Birth have Pagan Origins? Part II
~
There are plenty of sources from the second and third century in which the early writers created, critiqued, and debated the virgin birth myth.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
"The opponents of the historical actuality of the virgin birth grant that either the Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels borrowed their material from an early Christian tradition, but they endeavour to show that this tradition has no solid historical foundation. About A.D. 153 St. Justin (Apol., I, xxi) told his pagan readers that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ ought not to seem incredible to them, since many of the most esteemed pagan writers spoke of a number of sons of Zeus. About A.D. 178 the Platonic philosopher Celsus ridiculed the virgin birth of Christ, comparing it with the Greek myths of Danae, Melanippe, and Antiope; Origen (c. Cels. I, xxxvii) answered that Celsus wrote more like a buffoon than a philosopher. But modern theologians again derive the virgin birth of Our Lord from unhistorical sources, though their theories do not agree.
The Pagan Origin
Theory A first class of writers have recourse to pagan mythology in order to account for the early Christian tradition concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Usener [30] argues that the early Gentile Christians must have attributed to Christ what their pagan ancestors had attributed to their pagan heroes; hence the Divine sonship of Christ is a product of the religious thought of Gentile Christians. Hillmann [31] and Holtzmann [32] agree substantially with Usener's theory. Conrady [33] found in the Virgin Mary a Christian imitation of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the mother of Horus; but Holtzmann [34] declares that he cannot follow this "daring construction without a feeling of fear and dizziness", and Usener [35] is afraid that his friend Conrady moves on a precipitous track. Soltau [36] tries to transfer the supernatural origin of Augustus to Jesus, but Lobstein [37] fears that Soltau's attempt may throw discredit on science itself, and Kreyher [38] refutes the theory more at length.
There are plenty of sources from the second and third century in which the early writers created, critiqued, and debated the virgin birth myth.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
"The opponents of the historical actuality of the virgin birth grant that either the Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels borrowed their material from an early Christian tradition, but they endeavour to show that this tradition has no solid historical foundation. About A.D. 153 St. Justin (Apol., I, xxi) told his pagan readers that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ ought not to seem incredible to them, since many of the most esteemed pagan writers spoke of a number of sons of Zeus. About A.D. 178 the Platonic philosopher Celsus ridiculed the virgin birth of Christ, comparing it with the Greek myths of Danae, Melanippe, and Antiope; Origen (c. Cels. I, xxxvii) answered that Celsus wrote more like a buffoon than a philosopher. But modern theologians again derive the virgin birth of Our Lord from unhistorical sources, though their theories do not agree.
The Pagan Origin
Theory A first class of writers have recourse to pagan mythology in order to account for the early Christian tradition concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Usener [30] argues that the early Gentile Christians must have attributed to Christ what their pagan ancestors had attributed to their pagan heroes; hence the Divine sonship of Christ is a product of the religious thought of Gentile Christians. Hillmann [31] and Holtzmann [32] agree substantially with Usener's theory. Conrady [33] found in the Virgin Mary a Christian imitation of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the mother of Horus; but Holtzmann [34] declares that he cannot follow this "daring construction without a feeling of fear and dizziness", and Usener [35] is afraid that his friend Conrady moves on a precipitous track. Soltau [36] tries to transfer the supernatural origin of Augustus to Jesus, but Lobstein [37] fears that Soltau's attempt may throw discredit on science itself, and Kreyher [38] refutes the theory more at length.
Does the Virgin Birth have Pagan Origins? Part I
~
No where can one find evidence from the works of Josephus or Philo or any other Jewish historian recording a story about a virgin birth. We only find these documented statements recorded after the first century written by Gentiles. These documents are the very creeds and theology that have later formed the universal religion called Catholism.
The first century believers, who were mainly made up of Jews, never would have accepted the pagan virgin birth story. It wasn't until after the destruction of the Temple and 132 C.E. Bar-Kokhba Revolt that Gentiles were able take strong hold of the gospel and add their pagan thoughts to the equation. Even Paul recorded many problems with paganism creeping into the Church.
"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." (Acts 14:11)
It is well documented that in 1st – 4th century, Gentiles believed that many pagan gods were composed of half man and half god; therefore, it would have not been hard to comprehend that these pagan myths crept into the oral teachings of 'Jesus' -- especially decades after many believing Jews were kill or displaced by the two revolts. Without the leadership of the Apostle and Yeshua's faithful followers, many factions of the Christians began to compete with one another. This led to many pagan ideas which eventually influenced the masses of Gentile coming into the Christian belief. It is likely that the early Christian sects which adopted the greater pagan theology, especially those being of a supernatural god-human nature, probably attracted more Gentile converts than any other. We can grasp the mindsets of the first century Gentiles here in Acts 28:6.
“Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god”
Tammuz and Horus are two great example of the pagan virgin myths. Note how both were born on December 25, which orally is told to be linked to the virgin birth.
Horus was an Egyptian pagan god born to Isis, who was consider an “eternal virgin” born on 25 December. He was said to be born in a cave.
Tammuz was also born to the virgin, who name was also Isthar and said to be born on 25 December in a cave.
No where can one find evidence from the works of Josephus or Philo or any other Jewish historian recording a story about a virgin birth. We only find these documented statements recorded after the first century written by Gentiles. These documents are the very creeds and theology that have later formed the universal religion called Catholism.
The first century believers, who were mainly made up of Jews, never would have accepted the pagan virgin birth story. It wasn't until after the destruction of the Temple and 132 C.E. Bar-Kokhba Revolt that Gentiles were able take strong hold of the gospel and add their pagan thoughts to the equation. Even Paul recorded many problems with paganism creeping into the Church.
"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." (Acts 14:11)
It is well documented that in 1st – 4th century, Gentiles believed that many pagan gods were composed of half man and half god; therefore, it would have not been hard to comprehend that these pagan myths crept into the oral teachings of 'Jesus' -- especially decades after many believing Jews were kill or displaced by the two revolts. Without the leadership of the Apostle and Yeshua's faithful followers, many factions of the Christians began to compete with one another. This led to many pagan ideas which eventually influenced the masses of Gentile coming into the Christian belief. It is likely that the early Christian sects which adopted the greater pagan theology, especially those being of a supernatural god-human nature, probably attracted more Gentile converts than any other. We can grasp the mindsets of the first century Gentiles here in Acts 28:6.
“Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god”
Tammuz and Horus are two great example of the pagan virgin myths. Note how both were born on December 25, which orally is told to be linked to the virgin birth.
Horus was an Egyptian pagan god born to Isis, who was consider an “eternal virgin” born on 25 December. He was said to be born in a cave.
Tammuz was also born to the virgin, who name was also Isthar and said to be born on 25 December in a cave.
Son of David
~
Here is question to ponder -- Christ is called the Son of David. Why? Because the Jews expected a Messiah who came from the seed of David. If Christ came from an adopted father (Joseph), wouldn't there be at minimal, one instance in the Gospel of the Pharisees or Sadducees accusing Christ of this? And yet we read no evidence -- Instead we find that the Gospel goes to great lenths to establish the parentage of Christ to the line of King David.
Here is question to ponder -- Christ is called the Son of David. Why? Because the Jews expected a Messiah who came from the seed of David. If Christ came from an adopted father (Joseph), wouldn't there be at minimal, one instance in the Gospel of the Pharisees or Sadducees accusing Christ of this? And yet we read no evidence -- Instead we find that the Gospel goes to great lenths to establish the parentage of Christ to the line of King David.
Genealogy Misconception Part III
~
More detail on the word "sunelthein" or to "know"
The Hebrew word for “know” or “yada” can mean sexual intercourse; however, the Greek word equivalent here for the Hebrew word “yada" is not the same. The Greek word used here is “sunelthein”, which better means, " to accompany or to assemble" (Strong's No. G-4905). Here is the better translation of Matthew:
Matthew 1:16-25
16 Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Miryam, from whom (Joseph & Miryam) was born (Strong's #G1080, Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Miriam, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
The key word in the above verse is sunelthein. Should we translate this word as meaning "coming together for sexual intercourse"...? If so, then we're in big trouble, because this exact word is used in two other places in the Writings of the Apostles:
"The Spirit told me to go with (sunelthein) them, without discriminating. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house" - Acts 11:12.
"But on the next day, desiring to know the truth about why he was accused by the Jews, he freed him from the bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together (sunelthein), and brought Paul down and set him before them" - Acts 22:30.
The KJV word in Acts 22:30 is "to appear" and Elzevir's Greek Text uses the word elthein, but Griesbach, Lachmann, Tishendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth all use sunelthein. Does this not demonstrate the problem with being a student who relies solely on one text and/or one translation thereof?
If sunelthein means "to come together for sexual intercourse," then let's translate it that way not only in Matthew 1:18, but also in Acts 11:12 and 22:30?
"The Spirit told me to come together for sexual intercourse (sunelthein) with them, without discriminating. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house" - Acts 11:12.
"But on the next day, desiring to know the truth about why he was accused by the Jews, he freed him from the bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together for sexual intercourse (sunelthein) together, and brought Paul down and set him before them" - Acts 22:30.
So what is Greek word sunelthein really alluding to in Matthew 1:18...? Well, the word sunelthein comes from the Greek word sunerchomai, which means " to accompany; to assemble" (Strong's No. G-4905).
More detail on the word "sunelthein" or to "know"
The Hebrew word for “know” or “yada” can mean sexual intercourse; however, the Greek word equivalent here for the Hebrew word “yada" is not the same. The Greek word used here is “sunelthein”, which better means, " to accompany or to assemble" (Strong's No. G-4905). Here is the better translation of Matthew:
Matthew 1:16-25
16 Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Miryam, from whom (Joseph & Miryam) was born (Strong's #G1080, Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Miriam, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
The key word in the above verse is sunelthein. Should we translate this word as meaning "coming together for sexual intercourse"...? If so, then we're in big trouble, because this exact word is used in two other places in the Writings of the Apostles:
"The Spirit told me to go with (sunelthein) them, without discriminating. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house" - Acts 11:12.
"But on the next day, desiring to know the truth about why he was accused by the Jews, he freed him from the bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together (sunelthein), and brought Paul down and set him before them" - Acts 22:30.
The KJV word in Acts 22:30 is "to appear" and Elzevir's Greek Text uses the word elthein, but Griesbach, Lachmann, Tishendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth all use sunelthein. Does this not demonstrate the problem with being a student who relies solely on one text and/or one translation thereof?
If sunelthein means "to come together for sexual intercourse," then let's translate it that way not only in Matthew 1:18, but also in Acts 11:12 and 22:30?
"The Spirit told me to come together for sexual intercourse (sunelthein) with them, without discriminating. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house" - Acts 11:12.
"But on the next day, desiring to know the truth about why he was accused by the Jews, he freed him from the bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together for sexual intercourse (sunelthein) together, and brought Paul down and set him before them" - Acts 22:30.
So what is Greek word sunelthein really alluding to in Matthew 1:18...? Well, the word sunelthein comes from the Greek word sunerchomai, which means " to accompany; to assemble" (Strong's No. G-4905).
Genealogy Misconception Part II
~
Let look at it more closely, sabbatarian.com explains the virgin birth concept as:
Matthew 1:16-25 16
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Miryam, from whom (Joseph & Miryam) was born (Strong's #G1080, Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Miriam, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
Note: Pregnant by the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit made her pregnant. It means "The Holy Spirit" influenced her (Miryam) to get pregnant by Joseph prior to their permanent cohabitation. Thus she allowed herself to get pregnant (by consummating her marriage to Joseph before the scheduled date of their permanent cohabitation) because of the Holy and Righteous nature [Spiritual influence] of the situation. She was not only filled mentally and emotionally by YHVH's Holy Spirit of Love for The Eternal Himself, but also, for her husband Joseph (see verse 20 below), and , also, her yet to be conceived son, Yeshua (The Promised Messiah and rightful heir to the throne of David).
1Corinthians 7:9,36
9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth NOT: let them marry.
Traditional Christianity would have us to believe that all instances of premarital sex is a sin, but Yah's inspired word clearly reveals that a man and his soon-to-be virgin bride have not sinned. Joseph and Mary probably did had pre-marital sex before the full consummation of a Hebrew wedding; it however, was a pre-marital sex in which the marital process has already begun, which probably was not standard in those days. In my research, this statement above seems correct. Premarital sex, with the intent to marry a virgin is NOT a sin. Since this was the case with Joseph, being betroth to Mary, there was no sin on their part. It is also a possiblity that the Jewish oral law during that era felt differently and viewed premarital sex outside a signed ketubah was a sin. Perhaps this is why Joseph said the following:
Mat 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."
Let look at it more closely, sabbatarian.com explains the virgin birth concept as:
Matthew 1:16-25 16
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Miryam, from whom (Joseph & Miryam) was born (Strong's #G1080, Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Miriam, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
Note: Pregnant by the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit made her pregnant. It means "The Holy Spirit" influenced her (Miryam) to get pregnant by Joseph prior to their permanent cohabitation. Thus she allowed herself to get pregnant (by consummating her marriage to Joseph before the scheduled date of their permanent cohabitation) because of the Holy and Righteous nature [Spiritual influence] of the situation. She was not only filled mentally and emotionally by YHVH's Holy Spirit of Love for The Eternal Himself, but also, for her husband Joseph (see verse 20 below), and , also, her yet to be conceived son, Yeshua (The Promised Messiah and rightful heir to the throne of David).
1Corinthians 7:9,36
9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth NOT: let them marry.
Traditional Christianity would have us to believe that all instances of premarital sex is a sin, but Yah's inspired word clearly reveals that a man and his soon-to-be virgin bride have not sinned. Joseph and Mary probably did had pre-marital sex before the full consummation of a Hebrew wedding; it however, was a pre-marital sex in which the marital process has already begun, which probably was not standard in those days. In my research, this statement above seems correct. Premarital sex, with the intent to marry a virgin is NOT a sin. Since this was the case with Joseph, being betroth to Mary, there was no sin on their part. It is also a possiblity that the Jewish oral law during that era felt differently and viewed premarital sex outside a signed ketubah was a sin. Perhaps this is why Joseph said the following:
Mat 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."
Genealogy Misconception Part I
~
In the ancient Jewish wedding, the first stage of marriage was called the kiddushin or erusin. During this state, the couple was considered married but did not physically live together. At the betrothal, a written document was drawn up called the ketubah (meaning that which is written). Included in this document are provisions and promises of both the bridegroom and bride. Additionally, penalties for breaking the covenant were included too. We can see this example in this in the “do’s” and “don’t” written in the Ten Commandments -- which was also considered a Ketubah between YHVH and Israel.
The elements of the marriage contract (ketubah) consisted of two parts; the bride price (mohar) and the bride’s gift (dowry). The bride price was usually negotiated between the bridegroom and the bride’s father, in which the father would receive all of it. This might seem like an arranged financial proposition for the father but the intent of the mohar was to prove that the bridegroom was capable of financially supporting his daughter. The second part is called the dowry. This was a gift to the bride, usually part of her inheritance, given to her by her father to equip the bride for her new life.
Another tradition of a Hebrew wedding is called the nissuin. This was a stage after the betrothal in which the father of the bride or the father of the groom would decide when he could reunite with his bride. Often the nissuin would last 1-2 years. During this period, the groom and his father would build a dwelling place for him and his bride. Once the dwelling place was complete, the groom would unexpectedly arrive to his father-n-laws to take his bride.
Unlike to today, during ancient times, many Jewish fathers would give their daughters up for marriage around the time they reached puberty. The groom however, in most circumstances was much older than his bride to be. Now with the daughters being promised at such a young age, the father often encouraged provisions and clauses in the ketubah. These provisions included an extended period (nissuin - usually 1-2 years) of time before the groom and the bride could reunite. It was during this period, that the mother would teach her daughter about the life, marriage, children, and sex.
Now when we put all this together, we can begin to piece the puzzle on the difficult words of Christ’s natural birth. It is my guess that Mary was probably young in her age (almah). Perhaps she had just come into her puberty. For this reason, her parents probably insisted that she followed the nissuin tradition, which required a time of separation before she could come together (Sunerchomai in the Greek) with her promised husband Joseph. The Holy Ghost did not impregnate a married woman, but influence Mary that it was time for her to break off the nissuin and come together with Joseph so she could consummate her marriage. Why did G-d influence Mary to end the nissuin and have intercourse with her husband Joseph? Because everything is based on YHVH timing and his moedim. Shall I say, the stars were lined up perfectly?
With this knowledge, let’s put it in perspective and fit the pieces of the puzzle of the so-called virgin birth interpretation.
Matthew 1:16-25 16
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (Joseph & Mary) was born (Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Mary, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
It is also a possibility that the Jewish oral law during that era felt differently and viewed premarital sex outside a signed ketubah was a sin. Perhaps this is why Joseph said the following:
Mat 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."
In the ancient Jewish wedding, the first stage of marriage was called the kiddushin or erusin. During this state, the couple was considered married but did not physically live together. At the betrothal, a written document was drawn up called the ketubah (meaning that which is written). Included in this document are provisions and promises of both the bridegroom and bride. Additionally, penalties for breaking the covenant were included too. We can see this example in this in the “do’s” and “don’t” written in the Ten Commandments -- which was also considered a Ketubah between YHVH and Israel.
The elements of the marriage contract (ketubah) consisted of two parts; the bride price (mohar) and the bride’s gift (dowry). The bride price was usually negotiated between the bridegroom and the bride’s father, in which the father would receive all of it. This might seem like an arranged financial proposition for the father but the intent of the mohar was to prove that the bridegroom was capable of financially supporting his daughter. The second part is called the dowry. This was a gift to the bride, usually part of her inheritance, given to her by her father to equip the bride for her new life.
Another tradition of a Hebrew wedding is called the nissuin. This was a stage after the betrothal in which the father of the bride or the father of the groom would decide when he could reunite with his bride. Often the nissuin would last 1-2 years. During this period, the groom and his father would build a dwelling place for him and his bride. Once the dwelling place was complete, the groom would unexpectedly arrive to his father-n-laws to take his bride.
Unlike to today, during ancient times, many Jewish fathers would give their daughters up for marriage around the time they reached puberty. The groom however, in most circumstances was much older than his bride to be. Now with the daughters being promised at such a young age, the father often encouraged provisions and clauses in the ketubah. These provisions included an extended period (nissuin - usually 1-2 years) of time before the groom and the bride could reunite. It was during this period, that the mother would teach her daughter about the life, marriage, children, and sex.
Now when we put all this together, we can begin to piece the puzzle on the difficult words of Christ’s natural birth. It is my guess that Mary was probably young in her age (almah). Perhaps she had just come into her puberty. For this reason, her parents probably insisted that she followed the nissuin tradition, which required a time of separation before she could come together (Sunerchomai in the Greek) with her promised husband Joseph. The Holy Ghost did not impregnate a married woman, but influence Mary that it was time for her to break off the nissuin and come together with Joseph so she could consummate her marriage. Why did G-d influence Mary to end the nissuin and have intercourse with her husband Joseph? Because everything is based on YHVH timing and his moedim. Shall I say, the stars were lined up perfectly?
With this knowledge, let’s put it in perspective and fit the pieces of the puzzle of the so-called virgin birth interpretation.
Matthew 1:16-25 16
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (Joseph & Mary) was born (Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Mary, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
It is also a possibility that the Jewish oral law during that era felt differently and viewed premarital sex outside a signed ketubah was a sin. Perhaps this is why Joseph said the following:
Mat 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."
Yeshua was 50% human and 50% G-d
~
Christ was 100% human - but he did not have a human father.
Christians often teach, 'Jesus' is 100% man, but 100% G-d, does that make him 200%? Please note what you are saying, Christian contend that 'Jesus' is born from an earthy women. Here we get 50% human. Right so far? Then they claim G-d was his father. Right? Here we get 50% G-d. Ok, that equals to 100%. Now with this logic, can you say 'Jesus' is 100% man? Now with the same logic, is 'Jesus' 100% G-d? If so, did he live a sinless life as 100% man or did he accomplish a sinless life as 50% man and 50% G-d?
Another argument often spoken, “God is the Father and Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God.” I suppose it is like saying, “Jesus is God Jr.” Why do we accept these confusing statements without any logical answers? We should all re-examine scripture and open our minds to the possibility that a human Messiah is a wonderful teaching. Christ being fully human and substaining the temptation of sin without the benefit of being G-d is why he was chosen to be our kinsman's redeemer.
Christ was 100% human - but he did not have a human father.
Christians often teach, 'Jesus' is 100% man, but 100% G-d, does that make him 200%? Please note what you are saying, Christian contend that 'Jesus' is born from an earthy women. Here we get 50% human. Right so far? Then they claim G-d was his father. Right? Here we get 50% G-d. Ok, that equals to 100%. Now with this logic, can you say 'Jesus' is 100% man? Now with the same logic, is 'Jesus' 100% G-d? If so, did he live a sinless life as 100% man or did he accomplish a sinless life as 50% man and 50% G-d?
Another argument often spoken, “God is the Father and Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God.” I suppose it is like saying, “Jesus is God Jr.” Why do we accept these confusing statements without any logical answers? We should all re-examine scripture and open our minds to the possibility that a human Messiah is a wonderful teaching. Christ being fully human and substaining the temptation of sin without the benefit of being G-d is why he was chosen to be our kinsman's redeemer.
Yeshua was 100% human
~
There are many hints in the New Covenant writings that suggest Christ was 100% human. For instance, several passages in Luke suggest that both Christ's bilogical parents were amazed and SURPRISED at the wisdom of their son.
Luk 2:18-19 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. (19) But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luk 2:48-50 And when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously." 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
If both Mary and Joseph truly believed that their son was born of G-d's seed through a virgin conception, then why did they seem clueless of what was going on and why were they surprised at his gifts? From the passages above, it seems more likely that Mary pondered whether her son was a prophet vs. deity or G-d in the flesh.
There are many hints in the New Covenant writings that suggest Christ was 100% human. For instance, several passages in Luke suggest that both Christ's bilogical parents were amazed and SURPRISED at the wisdom of their son.
Luk 2:18-19 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. (19) But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luk 2:48-50 And when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously." 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
If both Mary and Joseph truly believed that their son was born of G-d's seed through a virgin conception, then why did they seem clueless of what was going on and why were they surprised at his gifts? From the passages above, it seems more likely that Mary pondered whether her son was a prophet vs. deity or G-d in the flesh.
Inheritance by Adoption?
~
In concert with Yeshua's inherited crown, the genealogy of Mary is completely irrelevant, as all in lineage must be through the father, not the mother! Therefore we must look at Joseph's genealogy. If Yeshua inherited the kingship through the adoption of an earthy father in Joseph, then that would mean G-d took the throne away from David's house, which is a violation of G-d's oath. Third, even if you can prove that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's lineage, it still would not be of help Yeshua's messiahship as her line does NOT go back to David through the King's son, Solomon; instead it list King David's brother, Nathan, thus eliminating any legitimate claim to the throne. Forth, Roman 1:3 states that Christ is the Messiah based upon the Flesh and not by adoption. "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"
In concert with Yeshua's inherited crown, the genealogy of Mary is completely irrelevant, as all in lineage must be through the father, not the mother! Therefore we must look at Joseph's genealogy. If Yeshua inherited the kingship through the adoption of an earthy father in Joseph, then that would mean G-d took the throne away from David's house, which is a violation of G-d's oath. Third, even if you can prove that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's lineage, it still would not be of help Yeshua's messiahship as her line does NOT go back to David through the King's son, Solomon; instead it list King David's brother, Nathan, thus eliminating any legitimate claim to the throne. Forth, Roman 1:3 states that Christ is the Messiah based upon the Flesh and not by adoption. "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"
Yeshua Virgin Birth Rarely Mentioned
~
If the Messiah was born of a "virgin" with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Te tament?
If such an event occurred, it would have been an unprecedented miracle! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence extremely unlikely.
We can not accept some thing that is hardly even mentioned, except for a few questionable verses, in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke. It would have been a VERY big deal and would have been of ten mentioned within the pages of the New Testament. The fact that it was NOT discussed in ANY of the examples in Acts, for ex ample, where we read of the preaching and/or acceptance of the Gospel, proves to us that it did not happen. Of course, there is also no mention of it in any of the epistles.
Imagine if this happened to day. Wouldn't such an event be on the front page of every newspaper in the world -- and the major topic of most news broad casts? Such was also the case then.
The silence regarding the virgin birth of Yeshua within the pages of the New Testament strongly suggest it never occurred and that Yeshua was born just as all other human beings are born -- AND THIS IN NO WAY DIMINISHES HIS BEING THE MESSIAH! Since his being the Messiah is not de pendant upon a "virgin birth", he is still very clearly the Messiah.
If the Messiah was born of a "virgin" with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Te tament?
If such an event occurred, it would have been an unprecedented miracle! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence extremely unlikely.
We can not accept some thing that is hardly even mentioned, except for a few questionable verses, in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke. It would have been a VERY big deal and would have been of ten mentioned within the pages of the New Testament. The fact that it was NOT discussed in ANY of the examples in Acts, for ex ample, where we read of the preaching and/or acceptance of the Gospel, proves to us that it did not happen. Of course, there is also no mention of it in any of the epistles.
Imagine if this happened to day. Wouldn't such an event be on the front page of every newspaper in the world -- and the major topic of most news broad casts? Such was also the case then.
The silence regarding the virgin birth of Yeshua within the pages of the New Testament strongly suggest it never occurred and that Yeshua was born just as all other human beings are born -- AND THIS IN NO WAY DIMINISHES HIS BEING THE MESSIAH! Since his being the Messiah is not de pendant upon a "virgin birth", he is still very clearly the Messiah.
Virgin shall be conceived
~
Matthew 1:22 and 23, sets forth that Jesus was born of a virgin, in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel."
The reader will remember from the First Part of this work that we have had frequent occasion to speak of the method employed in the New Testament and other Christian works, of citing from our Scriptures certain passages, which, on careful examination, have no reference whatever to the immediate subject. Thus they quote also the passage from Isaiah 7:14, "behold ×”ָ×¢ַלְמָ×”" (meaning the young woman and not virgin) "Is with child, and about to bring forth a son." The prophecy was given to Ahaz, King of Judah, in order to allay his apprehensions regarding the two kings who were to come to carry on war against Jerusalem. What connection could there subsist between a sign necessary to convince the King of Jerusalem, and the event of the birth of Jesus which happened so many centuries after? How could Ahaz receive consolation from prophecy, the fulfillment of which he was not to live to see?
Isaiah’s own declaration in Is 8:18 -
Here I am, and the children, whom the L-rd has given me, are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the L-rd of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.
This verse leaves no doubt about the way Isaiah’s children (at least those sons mentioned in Hebrew Bible) were named. Isaiah himself declares that G-d has given him children for signs to the nation of Israel - all have names that are symbolically connected with certain events that are prophesied. The major clue in this verse is shown in bold font – the children are (named) for signs and wonders in Israel.
Now, let’s use this clue to see if we can identify Isaiah’s children (those he names, anyway). The first name we find is (and I will use the properly transliterated Hebrew [not anglicized] names directly out of the Hebrew Bible) She’ar Yashuv (Is 7:3), which translates as ‘a remnant shall return’, and there’s no question about this boy being Isaiah’s son – it is stated so explicitly in v. 3
The L-rd said to Isaiah, “Go forth now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shear-Yashuv your son, at the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool in the highway of the washers’ field;
OK then, can we find this sign mentioned by Isaiah anywhere else? The answer is YES, not once, but twice. Here are these two places:
Is 10:21-22 – (21) A remnant shall return (she’ar yashuv in Hebrew) , a remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty G-d. (22) For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, still a remnant [of them] shall return (she’ar yashuv in Hebrew) ; the destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
Next, let’s go to the son mentioned in Chapter 8, whose name is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz(Is 8:3), which translates as ‘Plunder-Hastens-Spoil-Quickens’, and there’s no question here either that this boy is Isaiah’s son – it is states so explicitly in v. 3 -
And I got close to the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then said the L-rd to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”.
Can we find this sign mentioned by Isaiah anywhere else? The answer is YES, once in identical form and TWICE more where the same terminology is used without the ‘quicken’ (“maher”) and ‘hasten’ (“hash”), though in the same context. Here are these three places:
Is 8:1 - And the L-rd said to me, “Take a great scroll, and write on it in clear script, ‘quicken spoils hasten plunder’ (maher shalal hash baz in Hebrew).
Is 10:2 - To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of My people, that widows be theirspoils (shlalam in Hebrew), and that they plunder (yavozu in Hebrew) the orphans!
Is 10:6 - I will send them against a hypocritical nation, and against the people that anger Me will I give them a charge, to take spoils (lishlol shalal in Hebrew), and to plunder (v’lavoz baz in Hebrew), and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
OK, so now we have two of Isaiah’s sons identified in person, and we have also located the signs that correspond to their respective names. This brings us to Immanu’el (Is 7:14), which translates as ‘G-d is with us’, whose identity is somewhat obscure (i.e., whose kid is he anyway?). His impending arrival is, of course, noted in Is 7:14 -
Therefore the L-rd Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the young woman is with child [“harah”, ‘is pregnant’], and she will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu’el.
Our challenge here is to see if this “sign” mentioned by Isaiah can be found anywhere else. Is it mentioned anywhere else by the Prophet? The answer is YES, not once, but twice. Here are these two places:
Is 8:8 - And it shall pass through Judah; it shall overflow and go over, it shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, O Immanu’el.
Is 8:10 - Take counsel together, and it shall come to nothing; speak the word, and it shall not stand; for G-d is with us (ki immanu E-l in Hebrew).
In the first instance, the boy is actually mentioned by his name, Immanu’el, as part of the prophecy there, and in the second instance the actual sign signified by his name is noted – ‘G-d is with us’ – as part of that prophecy.
So there you have it, three sons named – She’ar Yashuv (7:3), Immanu’el (7:14, 8:8), and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (8:3) – along with the specific events for which these names were signs – she’ar yashuv (10:21-22), imanu E-l (8:10), and maher shalal hash baz (8:1, 10:2,6)
In summary, then, we know from Isaiah’s own words that his children were given as signs from G-d (Is 8:18), and the names given to them each carried a message (She’ar-Yashuv in 7:3, Immanu’el in 7: 14, and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:3). This is true of all other significant names mentioned by Isaiah. Moreover, this was also the case with the children of Hosea (Isaiah’s contemporary in the Northern Kingdom of Israel): Yizre’el, Lo-Rukhamah, and Lo-Ammi (Hosea 1:4,6,&9, respectively) – these names were all requested by G-d and carried messages with them.
Matthew 1:22 and 23, sets forth that Jesus was born of a virgin, in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel."
The reader will remember from the First Part of this work that we have had frequent occasion to speak of the method employed in the New Testament and other Christian works, of citing from our Scriptures certain passages, which, on careful examination, have no reference whatever to the immediate subject. Thus they quote also the passage from Isaiah 7:14, "behold ×”ָ×¢ַלְמָ×”" (meaning the young woman and not virgin) "Is with child, and about to bring forth a son." The prophecy was given to Ahaz, King of Judah, in order to allay his apprehensions regarding the two kings who were to come to carry on war against Jerusalem. What connection could there subsist between a sign necessary to convince the King of Jerusalem, and the event of the birth of Jesus which happened so many centuries after? How could Ahaz receive consolation from prophecy, the fulfillment of which he was not to live to see?
Isaiah’s own declaration in Is 8:18 -
Here I am, and the children, whom the L-rd has given me, are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the L-rd of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.
This verse leaves no doubt about the way Isaiah’s children (at least those sons mentioned in Hebrew Bible) were named. Isaiah himself declares that G-d has given him children for signs to the nation of Israel - all have names that are symbolically connected with certain events that are prophesied. The major clue in this verse is shown in bold font – the children are (named) for signs and wonders in Israel.
Now, let’s use this clue to see if we can identify Isaiah’s children (those he names, anyway). The first name we find is (and I will use the properly transliterated Hebrew [not anglicized] names directly out of the Hebrew Bible) She’ar Yashuv (Is 7:3), which translates as ‘a remnant shall return’, and there’s no question about this boy being Isaiah’s son – it is stated so explicitly in v. 3
The L-rd said to Isaiah, “Go forth now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shear-Yashuv your son, at the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool in the highway of the washers’ field;
OK then, can we find this sign mentioned by Isaiah anywhere else? The answer is YES, not once, but twice. Here are these two places:
Is 10:21-22 – (21) A remnant shall return (she’ar yashuv in Hebrew) , a remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty G-d. (22) For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, still a remnant [of them] shall return (she’ar yashuv in Hebrew) ; the destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
Next, let’s go to the son mentioned in Chapter 8, whose name is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz(Is 8:3), which translates as ‘Plunder-Hastens-Spoil-Quickens’, and there’s no question here either that this boy is Isaiah’s son – it is states so explicitly in v. 3 -
And I got close to the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then said the L-rd to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”.
Can we find this sign mentioned by Isaiah anywhere else? The answer is YES, once in identical form and TWICE more where the same terminology is used without the ‘quicken’ (“maher”) and ‘hasten’ (“hash”), though in the same context. Here are these three places:
Is 8:1 - And the L-rd said to me, “Take a great scroll, and write on it in clear script, ‘quicken spoils hasten plunder’ (maher shalal hash baz in Hebrew).
Is 10:2 - To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of My people, that widows be theirspoils (shlalam in Hebrew), and that they plunder (yavozu in Hebrew) the orphans!
Is 10:6 - I will send them against a hypocritical nation, and against the people that anger Me will I give them a charge, to take spoils (lishlol shalal in Hebrew), and to plunder (v’lavoz baz in Hebrew), and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
OK, so now we have two of Isaiah’s sons identified in person, and we have also located the signs that correspond to their respective names. This brings us to Immanu’el (Is 7:14), which translates as ‘G-d is with us’, whose identity is somewhat obscure (i.e., whose kid is he anyway?). His impending arrival is, of course, noted in Is 7:14 -
Therefore the L-rd Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the young woman is with child [“harah”, ‘is pregnant’], and she will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu’el.
Our challenge here is to see if this “sign” mentioned by Isaiah can be found anywhere else. Is it mentioned anywhere else by the Prophet? The answer is YES, not once, but twice. Here are these two places:
Is 8:8 - And it shall pass through Judah; it shall overflow and go over, it shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, O Immanu’el.
Is 8:10 - Take counsel together, and it shall come to nothing; speak the word, and it shall not stand; for G-d is with us (ki immanu E-l in Hebrew).
In the first instance, the boy is actually mentioned by his name, Immanu’el, as part of the prophecy there, and in the second instance the actual sign signified by his name is noted – ‘G-d is with us’ – as part of that prophecy.
So there you have it, three sons named – She’ar Yashuv (7:3), Immanu’el (7:14, 8:8), and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (8:3) – along with the specific events for which these names were signs – she’ar yashuv (10:21-22), imanu E-l (8:10), and maher shalal hash baz (8:1, 10:2,6)
In summary, then, we know from Isaiah’s own words that his children were given as signs from G-d (Is 8:18), and the names given to them each carried a message (She’ar-Yashuv in 7:3, Immanu’el in 7: 14, and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:3). This is true of all other significant names mentioned by Isaiah. Moreover, this was also the case with the children of Hosea (Isaiah’s contemporary in the Northern Kingdom of Israel): Yizre’el, Lo-Rukhamah, and Lo-Ammi (Hosea 1:4,6,&9, respectively) – these names were all requested by G-d and carried messages with them.
Yeshua was a Theophany
~
Paul's letter to the Galatians showed that Yeshua came into the world like anyone else.
“But when the time had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” (Gal 4:4)
Here Paul thoroughly expresses that Yeshua was a normal Jewish man who was called by G-d. He was not G-d in the flesh or someone who was born of both women and of a god – which by the way mimics many pagan myths (i.e. half man half god). Scripture also explicitly says no man has ever seen G-d.
"And He said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him." (John 1:18)
Yeshua was only a spokesman of G-d. In other words, he was considered a theophany. A theophany refers to either a visible or auditory manifestation of the YHVH. It is a combination of two Greek words, "theo" referring to deity and "phaino" meaning to shine or appear. We can see this in many verses throughout the bible. For example, in Genesis 32:24 we read that Jacob wrestled with a man, and yet he saw G-d face to face. Later in Hosea 12:3,4 we find out that it was not G-d who wrestled with Jacob but an angel, "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with G-d: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed.” So do these two verses contradict each other? Did Jacob see the face of YHVH or an angel? With a western mindset it sounds confusing but with a Hebrew mindset we can come to the conclusion that the angel who wrestled with Jacob was not “[b]G-d in the flesh[/b]” but was representation. This is was the same thought of Apostle John; he was not alluding to Yeshua being “G-d in the flesh” per see but a perfect representation of what G-d’s is in holiness.
Another great example of "theophany" can be found in Exodus chap 3 and 4. Here we find a many descriptive verses which appear to be Moses talking to G-d through a burning bush. To confirm, Moses then asks who is speaking and the burning bush gives the phrase “I AM”, which referred to the Almighty. So was Moses actually talking directly to YHVH? Well, according to Exodus 3:2 we find the burning bush as being an “angel of YHVH” not G-d Himself. Might point being, YHVH often talks and appears to His people through theophany or through people and angels who are chosen to be a spokesman for Him. Thus was the purpose of Yeshua!
Paul's letter to the Galatians showed that Yeshua came into the world like anyone else.
“But when the time had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” (Gal 4:4)
Here Paul thoroughly expresses that Yeshua was a normal Jewish man who was called by G-d. He was not G-d in the flesh or someone who was born of both women and of a god – which by the way mimics many pagan myths (i.e. half man half god). Scripture also explicitly says no man has ever seen G-d.
"And He said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him." (John 1:18)
Yeshua was only a spokesman of G-d. In other words, he was considered a theophany. A theophany refers to either a visible or auditory manifestation of the YHVH. It is a combination of two Greek words, "theo" referring to deity and "phaino" meaning to shine or appear. We can see this in many verses throughout the bible. For example, in Genesis 32:24 we read that Jacob wrestled with a man, and yet he saw G-d face to face. Later in Hosea 12:3,4 we find out that it was not G-d who wrestled with Jacob but an angel, "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with G-d: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed.” So do these two verses contradict each other? Did Jacob see the face of YHVH or an angel? With a western mindset it sounds confusing but with a Hebrew mindset we can come to the conclusion that the angel who wrestled with Jacob was not “[b]G-d in the flesh[/b]” but was representation. This is was the same thought of Apostle John; he was not alluding to Yeshua being “G-d in the flesh” per see but a perfect representation of what G-d’s is in holiness.
Another great example of "theophany" can be found in Exodus chap 3 and 4. Here we find a many descriptive verses which appear to be Moses talking to G-d through a burning bush. To confirm, Moses then asks who is speaking and the burning bush gives the phrase “I AM”, which referred to the Almighty. So was Moses actually talking directly to YHVH? Well, according to Exodus 3:2 we find the burning bush as being an “angel of YHVH” not G-d Himself. Might point being, YHVH often talks and appears to His people through theophany or through people and angels who are chosen to be a spokesman for Him. Thus was the purpose of Yeshua!
Syriac Version of Mathew Proves Joseph was the Father
~
An ancient Syriac version of Mathew from the Sinaitic gospels, which happens to be the “oldest” existing complete copy of the New Testament, clearly states Joseph begat Yeshua. Here is the source: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, Cambridge, at the University Press, 1894 http://books.google.com/books?id=kyEPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=agnes+smith+lewis+the+four+gospels+in+syriac&source=web&ots=HGPCHlQ4ik&sig=_QkPl88iIVIwxaXTna9lVPR7bvM&hl=en
St. Matt, i 16
"Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ... 25 When Joseph arose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife: and she bore to him a son, and he called his name Jesus. "
Even if the proper translation is "Mary the virgin", it still does not prove that a literal virgin was intended. If one marries a virgin and she conceives after the first act of sexual union, it can legitimately be stated that a virgin conceived. Of course, AFTER the union she would no longer be a virgin.
An ancient Syriac version of Mathew from the Sinaitic gospels, which happens to be the “oldest” existing complete copy of the New Testament, clearly states Joseph begat Yeshua. Here is the source: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, Cambridge, at the University Press, 1894 http://books.google.com/books?id=kyEPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=agnes+smith+lewis+the+four+gospels+in+syriac&source=web&ots=HGPCHlQ4ik&sig=_QkPl88iIVIwxaXTna9lVPR7bvM&hl=en
St. Matt, i 16
"Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ... 25 When Joseph arose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife: and she bore to him a son, and he called his name Jesus. "
Even if the proper translation is "Mary the virgin", it still does not prove that a literal virgin was intended. If one marries a virgin and she conceives after the first act of sexual union, it can legitimately be stated that a virgin conceived. Of course, AFTER the union she would no longer be a virgin.
Martyrdom of Bartholomew
~
Here is an interesting take on the Virgin birth story. An apocryphal writings on the acts and martyrdom of Bartholomew reads:
And as this virgin did not know man, so she, preserving her virginity, vowed a vow to the Lord God. And she said, I offer to Thee, O Lord, my virginity. And she being called for the salvation of many, observed this—that she might remain a virgin through the love of God, pure and undefiled. And suddenly, when she was shut up in her chamber, the archangel Gabriel appeared, gleaming like the sun; and when she was terrified at the sight, the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour in the sight of the Lord, and thou shall conceive. And she cast off fear, and stood up, and said, How shall this be to me, since I know not man?
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/acts/martbart.htm
Here is Mary’s protest: How can this be? When the angel told her she was pregnant, the implication was she took a vow of chastity, meaning how can break my vow of being a virgin for life if I am to be a mother?
Here is an interesting take on the Virgin birth story. An apocryphal writings on the acts and martyrdom of Bartholomew reads:
And as this virgin did not know man, so she, preserving her virginity, vowed a vow to the Lord God. And she said, I offer to Thee, O Lord, my virginity. And she being called for the salvation of many, observed this—that she might remain a virgin through the love of God, pure and undefiled. And suddenly, when she was shut up in her chamber, the archangel Gabriel appeared, gleaming like the sun; and when she was terrified at the sight, the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour in the sight of the Lord, and thou shall conceive. And she cast off fear, and stood up, and said, How shall this be to me, since I know not man?
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/acts/martbart.htm
Here is Mary’s protest: How can this be? When the angel told her she was pregnant, the implication was she took a vow of chastity, meaning how can break my vow of being a virgin for life if I am to be a mother?
Seed of a women
Carroll R. Bierbower, DD, PhD, Article - Was Jesus Virgin Born? Writes:
Perhaps the best witness of the impossibility of a virgin birth is Jesus Himself. In His conversation with Nicodemus He said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit". (John 3:6). He makes it very clear the flesh and the spirit are distinctly different. The flesh consists of matter made up of atoms and there is not a single atom of material matter in a spirit. Therefore we conclude that the Spirit of God did not posses a single atom of material matter, not even sperm, to father a human child. It had been commonly believed for centuries that the man planted a seed into the woman much like planting a seed in the soil (mother earth). This is why he is called a husband (farmer). With this belief, if a virgin conceived from the Spirit of God, a God would be produced. So, according to their belief, if God the Spirit fathered Jesus then He would be God.
Perhaps the best witness of the impossibility of a virgin birth is Jesus Himself. In His conversation with Nicodemus He said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit". (John 3:6). He makes it very clear the flesh and the spirit are distinctly different. The flesh consists of matter made up of atoms and there is not a single atom of material matter in a spirit. Therefore we conclude that the Spirit of God did not posses a single atom of material matter, not even sperm, to father a human child. It had been commonly believed for centuries that the man planted a seed into the woman much like planting a seed in the soil (mother earth). This is why he is called a husband (farmer). With this belief, if a virgin conceived from the Spirit of God, a God would be produced. So, according to their belief, if God the Spirit fathered Jesus then He would be God.
Curse of Jeconiah
Arthur C. Custance (http://custance.org) writes:
Concerning the curse of Jeconiah, the death of Salathiel this blood line terminated. In the principle of the Levirate (Deut. 25:5,6), it became incumbent upon Pedaiah, the deceased Salathiel's (step) brother, to take his widow and raise up seed through her who would not therefore be of Salathiel's blood line but would be constituted legally as Salathiel's son through whom the title would pass to his descendants. The son of this Levirate union was Zerubbabel. In Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 Zerubbabel is listed legally as Salathiel's son: but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 he is listed as the son of Pedaiah by actual blood relationship.
We thus have a remarkable chain of events. Jehoiakim has a son, Jechonias, who has a son, Salathiel, who by Levirate custom has a son named Zerubbabel. This son, Zerubbabel, has no blood line connection whatever with Jechonias, for he has no blood relationship with Salathiel. The blood relationship of Zerubbabel is with Pedaiah, and through Pedaiah with Pedaiah's mother, and through this mother with Neri. Thus Neri begat a grandson, Salathiel, through his daughter; and Salathiel "begets" a son, Zerubbabel, through Pedaiah.
The blood line thus passes through Zerubbabel: but so does the title also. The former passes via Pedaiah's mother, the latter passes through Salathiel's father. And though this mother and this father were also man and wife, the blood line stopped with Salathiel who literally died childless. It is necessary to emphasize this word literally, for it appears that it was literally true. Jeremiah 22:30 had predicted that Jechonias would also die "childless"-but we are reasonably sure that this was not literally the case, for he had a son Salathiel whom we cannot otherwise account for. But Jechonias' subsequent history tells us the sense in which childlessness was to be applied to him.
Concerning the curse of Jeconiah, the death of Salathiel this blood line terminated. In the principle of the Levirate (Deut. 25:5,6), it became incumbent upon Pedaiah, the deceased Salathiel's (step) brother, to take his widow and raise up seed through her who would not therefore be of Salathiel's blood line but would be constituted legally as Salathiel's son through whom the title would pass to his descendants. The son of this Levirate union was Zerubbabel. In Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 Zerubbabel is listed legally as Salathiel's son: but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 he is listed as the son of Pedaiah by actual blood relationship.
We thus have a remarkable chain of events. Jehoiakim has a son, Jechonias, who has a son, Salathiel, who by Levirate custom has a son named Zerubbabel. This son, Zerubbabel, has no blood line connection whatever with Jechonias, for he has no blood relationship with Salathiel. The blood relationship of Zerubbabel is with Pedaiah, and through Pedaiah with Pedaiah's mother, and through this mother with Neri. Thus Neri begat a grandson, Salathiel, through his daughter; and Salathiel "begets" a son, Zerubbabel, through Pedaiah.
The blood line thus passes through Zerubbabel: but so does the title also. The former passes via Pedaiah's mother, the latter passes through Salathiel's father. And though this mother and this father were also man and wife, the blood line stopped with Salathiel who literally died childless. It is necessary to emphasize this word literally, for it appears that it was literally true. Jeremiah 22:30 had predicted that Jechonias would also die "childless"-but we are reasonably sure that this was not literally the case, for he had a son Salathiel whom we cannot otherwise account for. But Jechonias' subsequent history tells us the sense in which childlessness was to be applied to him.
I know not a man
~
The angel tells Mary that she will conceive. Mary, engaged to be married, should have not found this to be a very startling announcement; but still Mary found this troubling and expostulates that she "knows no man." Greg Killian, http://www.betemunah.org/, writes the following:
In the genealogy story, Miriam askes a question, “How can this be, seeing that I know not a man (my husband)?” Miriam is asking how can she bear a son before her chupa (wedding canopy). The answer: Have intercourse before the chupa. Having intercourse before marriage is a valid Torah method for marrying a woman!
Now, before you get too riled up, there is a second possibility. Remember that an almah is a girl between the ages of 12 and 16. Now, not all girls of 12 years, have menstruated. Therefore, if Miriam was in this group, she may have been delaying the chupa for her menses to start. In this case, the Angel Gabriel is telling her to go to her chupa before menses This would have Miriam going to her chupa before her menses, then cohabiting with Yoseph, after the chupa. Miriam’s surprise is now quite understandable. How can I possibly have a child, seeing that I have NOT had my menses, I have not had a chupa, and even if I lay with a man I can not possibly conceive! So, just as in Yeshayhu 7:13-14, Miriam will have her chupa, her man, and her son, and it will be a miracle.
There is also a third possible answer to Miriam’s question. If Yoseph was either divorced or widowed, and knew that he could not father children, then Miraim’s question would be: “How can this be, seeing that I know not a (fertile) man (my husband)?” The obvious connection with Bereshit 18 would be stunning:
Bereshit (Genesis) 18:11-12 Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old [and] well stricken in age; [and] it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
The angel tells Mary that she will conceive. Mary, engaged to be married, should have not found this to be a very startling announcement; but still Mary found this troubling and expostulates that she "knows no man." Greg Killian, http://www.betemunah.org/, writes the following:
In the genealogy story, Miriam askes a question, “How can this be, seeing that I know not a man (my husband)?” Miriam is asking how can she bear a son before her chupa (wedding canopy). The answer: Have intercourse before the chupa. Having intercourse before marriage is a valid Torah method for marrying a woman!
Now, before you get too riled up, there is a second possibility. Remember that an almah is a girl between the ages of 12 and 16. Now, not all girls of 12 years, have menstruated. Therefore, if Miriam was in this group, she may have been delaying the chupa for her menses to start. In this case, the Angel Gabriel is telling her to go to her chupa before menses This would have Miriam going to her chupa before her menses, then cohabiting with Yoseph, after the chupa. Miriam’s surprise is now quite understandable. How can I possibly have a child, seeing that I have NOT had my menses, I have not had a chupa, and even if I lay with a man I can not possibly conceive! So, just as in Yeshayhu 7:13-14, Miriam will have her chupa, her man, and her son, and it will be a miracle.
There is also a third possible answer to Miriam’s question. If Yoseph was either divorced or widowed, and knew that he could not father children, then Miraim’s question would be: “How can this be, seeing that I know not a (fertile) man (my husband)?” The obvious connection with Bereshit 18 would be stunning:
Bereshit (Genesis) 18:11-12 Now Abraham and Sarah [were] old [and] well stricken in age; [and] it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Come together
~
In the ancient Jewish wedding, the first stage of marriage was called the kiddushin or erusin. During this state, the couple was considered married but did not physically live together. At the betrothal, a written document was drawn up called the ketubah (meaning that which is written). Included in this document are provisions and promises of both the bridegroom and bride. Additionally, penalties for breaking the covenant were included too. We can see this example in this in the “do’s” and “don’t” written in the Ten Commandments -- which was also considered a Ketubah between YHVH and Israel.
The elements of the marriage contract (ketubah) consisted of two parts; the bride price (mohar) and the bride’s gift (dowry). The bride price was usually negotiated between the bridegroom and the bride’s father, in which the father would receive all of it. This might seem like an arranged financial proposition for the father but the intent of the mohar was to prove that the bridegroom was capable of financially supporting his daughter. The second part is called the dowry. This was a gift to the bride, usually part of her inheritance, given to her by her father to equip the bride for her new life.
Another tradition of a Hebrew wedding is called the nissuin. This was a stage after the betrothal in which the father of the bride or the father of the groom would decide when he could reunite with his bride. Often the nissuin would last 1-2 years. During this period, the groom and his father would build a dwelling place for him and his bride. Once the dwelling place was complete, the groom would unexpectedly arrive to his father-n-laws to take his bride.
Unlike to today, during ancient times, many Jewish fathers would give their daughters up for marriage around the time they reached puberty. The groom however, in most circumstances was much older than his bride to be. Now with the daughters being promised at such a young age, the father often encouraged provisions and clauses in the ketubah. These provisions included an extended period (nissuin - usually 1-2 years) of time before the groom and the bride could reunite. It was during this period, that the mother would teach her daughter about the life, marriage, children, and sex.
When we put all this together, we can begin to piece the puzzle on the difficult words of Yeshua’s natural birth. It is my guess that Mary was probably young in her age (almah). Perhaps she had just come into her puberty. For this reason, her parents probably insisted that she followed the nissuin tradition, which required a time of separation before she could come together (Sunerchomai in the Greek) with her promised husband Joseph. The Holy Ghost did not impregnate a married woman, but influence Mary that it was time for her to break off the nissuin and come together with Joseph so she could consummate her marriage. Why did G-d influence Mary to end the nissuin and have intercourse with her husband Joseph? Because everything is based on YHVH timing and his moedim. Shall I say, the stars were lined up perfectly?
With this knowledge, let’s put it in perspective and fit the pieces of the puzzle of the so-called virgin birth interpretation.
Matthew 1:16-25 16 Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (Joseph & Mary) was born (Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Mary, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, [b]Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate[/b]), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
It is also a possibility that the Jewish oral law during that era felt differently and viewed premarital sex outside a signed ketubah was a sin. Perhaps this is why Joseph said the following: Mat 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."
In the ancient Jewish wedding, the first stage of marriage was called the kiddushin or erusin. During this state, the couple was considered married but did not physically live together. At the betrothal, a written document was drawn up called the ketubah (meaning that which is written). Included in this document are provisions and promises of both the bridegroom and bride. Additionally, penalties for breaking the covenant were included too. We can see this example in this in the “do’s” and “don’t” written in the Ten Commandments -- which was also considered a Ketubah between YHVH and Israel.
The elements of the marriage contract (ketubah) consisted of two parts; the bride price (mohar) and the bride’s gift (dowry). The bride price was usually negotiated between the bridegroom and the bride’s father, in which the father would receive all of it. This might seem like an arranged financial proposition for the father but the intent of the mohar was to prove that the bridegroom was capable of financially supporting his daughter. The second part is called the dowry. This was a gift to the bride, usually part of her inheritance, given to her by her father to equip the bride for her new life.
Another tradition of a Hebrew wedding is called the nissuin. This was a stage after the betrothal in which the father of the bride or the father of the groom would decide when he could reunite with his bride. Often the nissuin would last 1-2 years. During this period, the groom and his father would build a dwelling place for him and his bride. Once the dwelling place was complete, the groom would unexpectedly arrive to his father-n-laws to take his bride.
Unlike to today, during ancient times, many Jewish fathers would give their daughters up for marriage around the time they reached puberty. The groom however, in most circumstances was much older than his bride to be. Now with the daughters being promised at such a young age, the father often encouraged provisions and clauses in the ketubah. These provisions included an extended period (nissuin - usually 1-2 years) of time before the groom and the bride could reunite. It was during this period, that the mother would teach her daughter about the life, marriage, children, and sex.
When we put all this together, we can begin to piece the puzzle on the difficult words of Yeshua’s natural birth. It is my guess that Mary was probably young in her age (almah). Perhaps she had just come into her puberty. For this reason, her parents probably insisted that she followed the nissuin tradition, which required a time of separation before she could come together (Sunerchomai in the Greek) with her promised husband Joseph. The Holy Ghost did not impregnate a married woman, but influence Mary that it was time for her to break off the nissuin and come together with Joseph so she could consummate her marriage. Why did G-d influence Mary to end the nissuin and have intercourse with her husband Joseph? Because everything is based on YHVH timing and his moedim. Shall I say, the stars were lined up perfectly?
With this knowledge, let’s put it in perspective and fit the pieces of the puzzle of the so-called virgin birth interpretation.
Matthew 1:16-25 16 Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (Joseph & Mary) was born (Gennao, procreated or begotten as a property of the father or sire, Joseph, as stated) Yeshua, who is called Messiah. 17 So all the (Male) generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations (of males). 18 Now the birth of Messiah Yeshua was like this; because when his mother, Mary, had been espoused (G3423, "mnesteno", promised wife) to Joseph, before they came together (Strong's #4905, [b]Sunerchomai, Live together on a daily basis or cohabitate[/b]), she was found pregnant by the [mental or Spiritual influence of the] Holy Spirit [that resided within her mind].
It is also a possibility that the Jewish oral law during that era felt differently and viewed premarital sex outside a signed ketubah was a sin. Perhaps this is why Joseph said the following: Mat 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."
Will be called Son of the Most High
~
Luke 1:32
32 He will be great, and will be called (NOT is already called the son of G-d) the Son of the Most High. G-d will give to him the throne of his father, David, (Not the throne or position of G-d, but the throne of Israel in The New Jerusalem).
Luke 1:32
32 He will be great, and will be called (NOT is already called the son of G-d) the Son of the Most High. G-d will give to him the throne of his father, David, (Not the throne or position of G-d, but the throne of Israel in The New Jerusalem).
Mother of God
~
Augustine of Hippo, who was the father of the orthodoxy who sought to deny that mankind truly had any free will and as such was not responsible for his prior acts of sexual irresponsibility.
To Augustine, Adam’s original sin was caused by Adam having sex to Eve at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This “Original Sin” was now transmitted through the mother’s womb and by it, tainted all human beings leaving them incapable of choosing good over evil. It also denied man the responsibility of choosing his own spiritual destiny.
By such circular reasoning, Mary the maiden, was sexually inexperienced not because of her choice, but because the Lord of hosts determined that it was to be this way. By denying the fatherhood of Joseph, the Roman Church also was denying that the Original Sin of Adam would not taint the babe who was the Christ Child. How so, we ask, could not the Original Sin of Adam also come through the genes of Mary? Not so said the Roman Catholic Church, for Mary the mother of Jesus was also born, not from living earthy parents, but by Immaculate Conception. And so the circle of spiritual reasoning was complete……and in the process Jesus lost all of his humanness. In essence, Jesus was ‘Wholly God” but God was Jesus’ Father and God was also Jesus’ grandfather and Jesus’ grandmother through the immaculate conception of Mary.
Augustine of Hippo, who was the father of the orthodoxy who sought to deny that mankind truly had any free will and as such was not responsible for his prior acts of sexual irresponsibility.
To Augustine, Adam’s original sin was caused by Adam having sex to Eve at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This “Original Sin” was now transmitted through the mother’s womb and by it, tainted all human beings leaving them incapable of choosing good over evil. It also denied man the responsibility of choosing his own spiritual destiny.
By such circular reasoning, Mary the maiden, was sexually inexperienced not because of her choice, but because the Lord of hosts determined that it was to be this way. By denying the fatherhood of Joseph, the Roman Church also was denying that the Original Sin of Adam would not taint the babe who was the Christ Child. How so, we ask, could not the Original Sin of Adam also come through the genes of Mary? Not so said the Roman Catholic Church, for Mary the mother of Jesus was also born, not from living earthy parents, but by Immaculate Conception. And so the circle of spiritual reasoning was complete……and in the process Jesus lost all of his humanness. In essence, Jesus was ‘Wholly God” but God was Jesus’ Father and God was also Jesus’ grandfather and Jesus’ grandmother through the immaculate conception of Mary.
The meaning of ‘virgin’
Jesus the Jew, pg 219, by Geza Vermes
The meaning of ‘virgin’
A well-established usage of bethulah associates virginity, not with absence of sexual experience, but with an inability to conceive: a virgin is a girl who has not yet attained puberty. This sort of ‘virginity’ ends not with intercourse, but menstruation. Asking ‘Who is a virgin?’ the two earliest rabbinic codes, the Mishnah and Tosephta answer:
“Whoever has never seen blood even though she is married.”
The Tosephta, reflecting the teaching of the late-first-century CE Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, adds:
“I call a virgin whoever has never seen blood, even though she is married and has had children, until she has seen the first show.”
(a)The Palestinian Talmud goes ever further:
“Who is a virgin? According to the Mishnah, whoever has never seen blood even though she is married –She is said to be a virgin in respect of menstruation but not a virgin in respect of the token of virginity. Sometimes she is a virgin in the latter respect, but not a virgin in respect of menstruation.
(b) Marriage prior to puberty
It was possible, the evidence shows, for a girl to marry and cohabit with her husband before reaching puberty. In fact, it appears to have happened often enough to give rise to a dispute between the two leading rabbinic schools of the first century AD on the subject of whether a bloodstain on the wedding-night of a minor (i.e. a virgin in respect of menstruation) should be attributed to the rupture of the hymen or to her first period. The more rigorous House of Shammai settled for the first alternative for the first four nights only; the House of Hillel decided similarly but ‘until the healing of the wound’.
Another consequence of such a state of affairs was that a girl could conceive whilst still a ‘virgin’ in respect of menstruation, i.e. at the moment of her first ovulation. She could thus become a ‘virgin mother’. Indeed, in the event of her becoming pregnant a second time before menstruation, she could be, as Elizer ben Hyrcanus argues, the ‘virgin mother’ of several children!
In the Lucan version, by contrast, when told by an angel that she would conceive and bear the future Messiah, Mary asks:
“How can this be, for I know no man?”
On the lips of a girl described as betrothed – which in ancient Jewish law normally implied that she was a minor awaiting the right biological moment to change the status of wife – these words might be paraphrased: ‘How can this be, for I have not yet begun to menstruate? Should I nevertheless marry in spite of seeming not yet ready?’ To which the angel replies with the information that her cousin, who had passed the menopause and was technically ‘virgin’ once more, had also conceived, the implication being that the one achievement was not more unthinkable than the other:
‘Your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.”
In both the Greek and Hebrew parlance of the Jews, the term ‘virgin’ was used elastically. It was certainly not confined to denoting men and women without experience of sexual intercourse. The Greek work could explicitly or implicitly include this meaning or the main stress could fall on the youth of a girl or boy, and generally, though not necessarily, on their unmarried state. As a matter of fact, Greek (and Latin) inscriptions found in the Jewish catacombs of Rome reveal that the word ‘virgin’ could apply, even after years of matrimony, to either a wife or a husband, probably implying that the marriage in question was his or her first one. A certain Argentia is described as having lived with her virgin husband for nine years; the wife of Germanus lived with her virgin husband for three years and three days. There is also mention of Irene, virgin wife of Clodius.
The implication is that the supposition was erroneous. But if so, why did Luke, and the tradition responsible for the genealogical table before him, waste their time compiling a sequence of irrelevant ancestors in order to trace Jesus’ lineage back to ‘Adam, the son of God’?
The meaning of ‘virgin’
A well-established usage of bethulah associates virginity, not with absence of sexual experience, but with an inability to conceive: a virgin is a girl who has not yet attained puberty. This sort of ‘virginity’ ends not with intercourse, but menstruation. Asking ‘Who is a virgin?’ the two earliest rabbinic codes, the Mishnah and Tosephta answer:
“Whoever has never seen blood even though she is married.”
The Tosephta, reflecting the teaching of the late-first-century CE Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, adds:
“I call a virgin whoever has never seen blood, even though she is married and has had children, until she has seen the first show.”
(a)The Palestinian Talmud goes ever further:
“Who is a virgin? According to the Mishnah, whoever has never seen blood even though she is married –She is said to be a virgin in respect of menstruation but not a virgin in respect of the token of virginity. Sometimes she is a virgin in the latter respect, but not a virgin in respect of menstruation.
(b) Marriage prior to puberty
It was possible, the evidence shows, for a girl to marry and cohabit with her husband before reaching puberty. In fact, it appears to have happened often enough to give rise to a dispute between the two leading rabbinic schools of the first century AD on the subject of whether a bloodstain on the wedding-night of a minor (i.e. a virgin in respect of menstruation) should be attributed to the rupture of the hymen or to her first period. The more rigorous House of Shammai settled for the first alternative for the first four nights only; the House of Hillel decided similarly but ‘until the healing of the wound’.
Another consequence of such a state of affairs was that a girl could conceive whilst still a ‘virgin’ in respect of menstruation, i.e. at the moment of her first ovulation. She could thus become a ‘virgin mother’. Indeed, in the event of her becoming pregnant a second time before menstruation, she could be, as Elizer ben Hyrcanus argues, the ‘virgin mother’ of several children!
In the Lucan version, by contrast, when told by an angel that she would conceive and bear the future Messiah, Mary asks:
“How can this be, for I know no man?”
On the lips of a girl described as betrothed – which in ancient Jewish law normally implied that she was a minor awaiting the right biological moment to change the status of wife – these words might be paraphrased: ‘How can this be, for I have not yet begun to menstruate? Should I nevertheless marry in spite of seeming not yet ready?’ To which the angel replies with the information that her cousin, who had passed the menopause and was technically ‘virgin’ once more, had also conceived, the implication being that the one achievement was not more unthinkable than the other:
‘Your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.”
In both the Greek and Hebrew parlance of the Jews, the term ‘virgin’ was used elastically. It was certainly not confined to denoting men and women without experience of sexual intercourse. The Greek work could explicitly or implicitly include this meaning or the main stress could fall on the youth of a girl or boy, and generally, though not necessarily, on their unmarried state. As a matter of fact, Greek (and Latin) inscriptions found in the Jewish catacombs of Rome reveal that the word ‘virgin’ could apply, even after years of matrimony, to either a wife or a husband, probably implying that the marriage in question was his or her first one. A certain Argentia is described as having lived with her virgin husband for nine years; the wife of Germanus lived with her virgin husband for three years and three days. There is also mention of Irene, virgin wife of Clodius.
The implication is that the supposition was erroneous. But if so, why did Luke, and the tradition responsible for the genealogical table before him, waste their time compiling a sequence of irrelevant ancestors in order to trace Jesus’ lineage back to ‘Adam, the son of God’?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Is the Virgin Birth story valid?
~
We all know, G-d is capable of anything, not to mention making a virgin pregnant. But does a virgin birth make Yeshua any more of a Messiah? Does it matter? Did Mariam need to conceive him without a husband? Did this make Yeshua more spiritual? Why Mary and not Joseph? Was Joseph less G-dly than she? Only if you believe in the Catholic dogma of the “Immaculate Conception,” does the Virgin Birth seem necessary; that is, only if you believe that Mary was sinless herself. Furthermore, “divine flesh” by definition cannot die. Since Yeshua died, he obviously was not divine flesh. So he supposedly had a divine soul. Where would Jesus have gotten a soul that was any different than that given to everyone else? Are we not all made in G-d’s image and given divine souls?
And why give Joseph’s Genealogy? In other words, what purpose did it serve for writers of the Gospels to go through great lengths to historically record a Joseph who was descendent from David if indeed Yeshua was not born of his seed? Joseph’s genealogy means absolutely nothing if he is not the father of Yeshua. The original idea of the writers of the New Testament was obviously to trace Yeshua’s lineage through Joseph to David to fulfill messianic prophecy.
Joseph must be the physical father of Yeshua, if not, he cannot inherit the genealogical line of Joseph. One cannot inherit tribal lineage or land through adoption. If a Cohen (Priest) were to adopt a child, that child would not become a Cohen. This is why we are exhorted to give money and food to the Priest, the Widow (or orphan) and the Proselyte. These are those who have no inheritance and must be supported by the community in order to survive.
G-d is not the seed of Solomon. If G-d is the father of Yeshua as the gospels assert, then Yeshua is not a descendant of Solomon. Yes, G-d can do anything he wants, but he doesn’t lie and He has already told us that Messiah would be a descendant of David through Solomon.
Many of these above questions must be answered before one can firmly accept a virgin birth. Additionally, Paul, nor James, nor Peter make any reference to a virgin birth. We do not find a single occurrence of any Apostles mentioning the Virgin Birth. In fact, Paul seemed completely unaware of the Virgin Birth. Would it not seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known any miraculous concerning Yeshua’s birth that he would have mentioned them at least once in his letters? Note what Paul says in Galatians 4:4, his first reference to Yeshua’s birth:
“But when the time had fully come (Mariam’s pregnancy), G-d sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law.”
One would think, if Paul had been aware of a virgin birth, he would have undoubtedly replaced “woman” with “virgin”, or made some reference to show that the birth was miraculous.
In Romans 1:1-3 Paul makes another remark concerning Yeshua’s birth:
"I Paul, a servant of Jesus the Messiah, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of G-d…concerning his Son Jesus the Messiah our Lord, which was made of the “seed” of David according to the flesh."
To put it in plain English, “seed” means “sperm” -- from a man. The phrase “of the seed of David” strongly indicates that Paul believed Yeshua to be the son of Joseph, who was of the tribe of David. The phrase “according to the flesh” implies a natural, normal conception and birth. Matthew also traces Jesus’ genealogy from David to Joseph.
John must have been aware of the “virgin birth”, especially since he was considered as the ‘beloved’ disciple who knew so much about his Master. But John seems to have rejected it as being a false teaching. In John 1:45 he refers to Jesus specifically as “the son of Joseph.” John 6:42 repeats the phrase: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?”
1 Chronicles 17:11-14 [referring to the Messiah] And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.
This quote from 1 Chronicles is talking about The Anointed One, The Messiah. It shows that he will come from the line of David, come from David's seed, according to the flesh, and that he will build his Father's house (the Holy Temple).
Acts 2:30 confirms 1 Chronicles 17 in saying: "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G-d had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Anointed One to sit on his throne."
(Acts 2:30) Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G-d had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Anointed One to sit on his throne.”
It is quite clear that Jesus was born of the seed of Joseph. Women do not have seed. The Messiah would come from the fruit of David's body, according to the flesh.
We all know, G-d is capable of anything, not to mention making a virgin pregnant. But does a virgin birth make Yeshua any more of a Messiah? Does it matter? Did Mariam need to conceive him without a husband? Did this make Yeshua more spiritual? Why Mary and not Joseph? Was Joseph less G-dly than she? Only if you believe in the Catholic dogma of the “Immaculate Conception,” does the Virgin Birth seem necessary; that is, only if you believe that Mary was sinless herself. Furthermore, “divine flesh” by definition cannot die. Since Yeshua died, he obviously was not divine flesh. So he supposedly had a divine soul. Where would Jesus have gotten a soul that was any different than that given to everyone else? Are we not all made in G-d’s image and given divine souls?
And why give Joseph’s Genealogy? In other words, what purpose did it serve for writers of the Gospels to go through great lengths to historically record a Joseph who was descendent from David if indeed Yeshua was not born of his seed? Joseph’s genealogy means absolutely nothing if he is not the father of Yeshua. The original idea of the writers of the New Testament was obviously to trace Yeshua’s lineage through Joseph to David to fulfill messianic prophecy.
Joseph must be the physical father of Yeshua, if not, he cannot inherit the genealogical line of Joseph. One cannot inherit tribal lineage or land through adoption. If a Cohen (Priest) were to adopt a child, that child would not become a Cohen. This is why we are exhorted to give money and food to the Priest, the Widow (or orphan) and the Proselyte. These are those who have no inheritance and must be supported by the community in order to survive.
G-d is not the seed of Solomon. If G-d is the father of Yeshua as the gospels assert, then Yeshua is not a descendant of Solomon. Yes, G-d can do anything he wants, but he doesn’t lie and He has already told us that Messiah would be a descendant of David through Solomon.
Many of these above questions must be answered before one can firmly accept a virgin birth. Additionally, Paul, nor James, nor Peter make any reference to a virgin birth. We do not find a single occurrence of any Apostles mentioning the Virgin Birth. In fact, Paul seemed completely unaware of the Virgin Birth. Would it not seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known any miraculous concerning Yeshua’s birth that he would have mentioned them at least once in his letters? Note what Paul says in Galatians 4:4, his first reference to Yeshua’s birth:
“But when the time had fully come (Mariam’s pregnancy), G-d sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law.”
One would think, if Paul had been aware of a virgin birth, he would have undoubtedly replaced “woman” with “virgin”, or made some reference to show that the birth was miraculous.
In Romans 1:1-3 Paul makes another remark concerning Yeshua’s birth:
"I Paul, a servant of Jesus the Messiah, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of G-d…concerning his Son Jesus the Messiah our Lord, which was made of the “seed” of David according to the flesh."
To put it in plain English, “seed” means “sperm” -- from a man. The phrase “of the seed of David” strongly indicates that Paul believed Yeshua to be the son of Joseph, who was of the tribe of David. The phrase “according to the flesh” implies a natural, normal conception and birth. Matthew also traces Jesus’ genealogy from David to Joseph.
John must have been aware of the “virgin birth”, especially since he was considered as the ‘beloved’ disciple who knew so much about his Master. But John seems to have rejected it as being a false teaching. In John 1:45 he refers to Jesus specifically as “the son of Joseph.” John 6:42 repeats the phrase: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?”
1 Chronicles 17:11-14 [referring to the Messiah] And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.
This quote from 1 Chronicles is talking about The Anointed One, The Messiah. It shows that he will come from the line of David, come from David's seed, according to the flesh, and that he will build his Father's house (the Holy Temple).
Acts 2:30 confirms 1 Chronicles 17 in saying: "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G-d had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Anointed One to sit on his throne."
(Acts 2:30) Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G-d had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Anointed One to sit on his throne.”
It is quite clear that Jesus was born of the seed of Joseph. Women do not have seed. The Messiah would come from the fruit of David's body, according to the flesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)