JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[Ed J]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 17 2012,13:41)

Quote (Ed J @ July 17 2012,13:07) Quote (Ed J @ July 14 2012,13:58) Hi Frank, When do you believe Yashua was begotten of by God? 1. At conception/birth 2. At baptism 3. At resurrection? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Frank? Ed J?

#1, #2, or #3; – which do you believe?

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2012,11:26)

Quote (jammin @ July 15 2012,22:39) the man and a man. are they both created by nature??? the god and a god, are they both created by nature? jammin, This is not that hard.  The one and only Omniscient Creator of All Things did not beget the one and only Omniscient Creator of All Things.  Instead, that Most High God begat a not quite as high god.  That is why the second highest god in existence calls the Most High God “my God”. Think it out, man.  Does God Almighty have a God of His own?  YES or NO?  (Because Jesus does.)

i still a have question for you boy
dont see you that??

ill repeat
the man and a man. are they both created by nature???

the god and a god, are they both created by nature?

yes or no?

[jammin]

i have no problem with the term begotten that you are talking about.
that is what the bible says. there is no problem with that. the problem is your understanding boy.

that is why im asking you boy
the man and a man. are they both created by nature???

the god and a god, are they both created by nature?

yes or no?

[jammin]

Quote (Ed J @ July 17 2012,13:05)

Quote (Wakeup @ July 17 2012,01:59) Jammin. If Jesus was not truly man,but half God and half man;then his sacrifice would have not been as a man suffering,but as a God suffering which is a big difference. wakeup.

wakeup

jesus was truly man and truly God.
that is what the bible says.

[Wakeup]

Quote (jammin @ July 17 2012,13:58)

Quote (Ed J @ July 17 2012,13:05) Quote (Wakeup @ July 17 2012,01:59) Jammin. If Jesus was not truly man,but half God and half man;then his sacrifice would have not been as a man suffering,but as a God suffering which is a big difference. wakeup. wakeup jesus was truly man and truly God. that is what the bible says.

Jammin.

If Jesus is truly God as you say he is,then his sacrifice becomes very suspicious: because how can we be sure that he was feeling all the pain?
He as God could have just stop all the pain,and dont feel a thing.(it all would have been a pretend suffering).

This makes the sacrifice a fake scrifice.
He must be only Human,without the God portion.
Truly human with the spirit of God dwelling in him.(just as we are; truly human with the spirit of God in us).
At the cross,that spirit left him; this proved to us that he really felt the pain as a true human,without Gods assistance.

wakeup.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (Ed J @ July 17 2012,13:52)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 17 2012,13:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 17 2012,13:07) Quote (Ed J @ July 14 2012,13:58) Hi Frank, When do you believe Yashua was begotten of by God? 1. At conception/birth 2. At baptism 3. At resurrection? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Frank? Ed J?   #1, #2, or #3; – which do you believe?

Ed J,

You pick a number, any number!

[Frank4YAHWEH]

The Virgin Birth — or Virgin Conception?

Does the Inspired word of YEHOVAH God truly teach “The Virgin Birth” and “Immaculate Conception” — or a completely different doctrine? Open up your Bible and see what it REALLY says!

by D. J. Love
Edited By John D. Keyser.

A “Seeker of Truth” can still spiritually discern most of the truth from the highly biased translations of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) of the so called New Testament, which is at least a third level translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired hellenized (pagan by choice) Jews, followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine “the Great.”

In fact the Ebionites, of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the virgin birth narrative — unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the virgin birth story.

Writes Barrie Wilson —

   …they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking. So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus “preexisted” his human form in any fashion…He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah because God judged him more righteous than any other person (How Jesus Became Christian, St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 2008, p. 100).

There is much evidence to suggest that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were — like the present Gospel of Mark — WITHOUT the first two chapters — starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling.

So, rather than just have those who seek truth from taking my word for it, I have decided to show that there are loopholes in the highly biased (so called) New Testament translations we have today.

Remember this: ONLY a person with YEHOVAH's holy spirit (active force, righteousness seeking mentality) of Truth can properly understand and translate “the inspired Words of YHVH.” Certainly not pagan by choice (hellenized), Jewish born translators OR a Roman Government sponsored Universal Roman (Catholic) Church headed by a SELF proclaimed Roman god and emperor; who didn't actually make any effort to convert to his own perverted form of Christianity until he (Constantine) was on his death bed.

Notice 1 Corinthians 2:14:

   But the natural [uninspired or pagan or hellenized] man does not receive the things [fruits of the spirit: wisdom, understanding, patience, love, etc.] of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED [NOT pagan or Greek discerned].

Also John 16:13:

   Howbeit, when the Spirit of truth, is come, IT will guide you into all truth: for IT shall not speak of itself; but whatsoever IT shall hear, that shall IT speak: and IT will shew you things to come.

Notice that the personal pronoun “He” was added to the King James and subsequent English versions of the Bible whenever the holy spirit was the topic. But the Greek language reveals that THE HOLY SPIRIT is YEHOVAH's “righteousness seeking mindset,” and NOT a third person of the pagan trinity.

Just for the record, YEHOVAH God is not a male (He), female (She) or an IT. In order for YEHOVAH to be these things, YEHOVAH would have to be flesh, and YEHOVAH God is not flesh any more than the Messiah was (is) God.

“The Virgin Birth” According to the Roman Christopagan Version of Matthew (See if you can spot the subtle translation errors.)

Some Hebrew translations actually render “Virgin Conception” rather than “Virgin Birth.” That is, frankly, far more probable, as virgin conception is not an uncommon occurrence.

Matthew 1:1-15:

   1 The book of the generation of Messiah Yeshua, the son of David, the son of Abraham. [Note: The Hebrew considered all male descendants to be sons (sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, great-great-grandsons, etc.)].

   2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

   3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

   4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

   5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

   6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

   7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

   8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

   9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

   10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

   11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

   12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

   13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

   14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

   15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

The term “virgin” simply establishes the fact that the Messiah would be the First Born Son or Eldest Son and thus the lawful contender to the throne of David, because it is only possible for a first born child to be conceived from a virgin. In other words, Mary became pregnant with the Messiah and lost her virginity at the exact same time (her FIRST TIME), thus confirming the Messiah's physical birth (a physical to spiritual parallel) as a FIRST BORN SON (physical for Mary and Joseph, but spiritual for YEHOVAH God).

Regardless of all of this, and even IF Joseph's and King David's seed was supernaturally placed into the virgin womb of Mary, Mary's virginity would still not prove that the Messiah pre-existed or was God. It (IF true) would still only prove that the Messiah was without a doubt the First Born or Eldest Son of Mary, and (IF supernaturally conceived) thus not a true physical seed of Abraham. (Spiritual? Yes! Physical? No!).
Matthew 1:16-25:

   16 Jacob became the father of Joseph, [who was] the husband of Mary, from whom [Joseph & Mary] 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, 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 should be clearly understood that pregnant by the holy spirit does NOT mean that the holy spirit made her pregnant. It means the holy spirit INFLUENCED Mary 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 situa
tion. She was not only filled mentally and emotionally by YEHOVAH'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).

Notice what 1 Corinthians 7:9, 36 says:

   9 But 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 premarital sex is a sin, but YEHOVAH's inspired word clearly reveals that a man and his virgin have not sinned.

Did Mary and Joseph have full intercourse prior to their marriage? Absolutely, as it was not an uncommon practice in those days for ENGAGED COUPLES because in those days the only difference between a promised marriage and actual marriage was permanent “cohabitation.” Joseph and Mary were not only married in their own opinion, but also, in YEHOVAH's opinion. They loved each other with a holy spirit of love, and they eventually cohabitated as a married couple. Therefore, they did not sin, and their relationship remained righteous.

Additionally, Joseph had to be the true PHYSICAL FATHER (sire) of Yeshua the Messiah in order for the verses of Matthew 1:1-15 to have any TRUE purpose in being mentioned at all. We already know from research that Christianity has lied about the identity of the holy spirit (a mental attitude of seeking righteousness), so it only makes sense that they lied about this too, since the holy spirit is involved in MARY'S DECISION to get pregnant. The Universal Roman Church actually wants mankind to believe in the pagan Trinity. Only pagans believe that humans and gods or demigods have children from sex or a magical implantation of the seed of Abraham. This pagan concept is pure rubbish based on superstition and ignorance. Why would YEHOVAH God pervert his own promise to Abraham with a scam or misrepresentation when He didn't need to. Joseph was right there, and Mary was already his by promise. Would righteous YEHOVAH perform such an unrighteous act against both Mary and Joseph? Absolutely Not !

Many people take the above verses to buttress their viewpoint that Mary was somehow “impregnated” by YEHOVAH God to produce the child Yeshua. Let's consider this for a moment. If Mary was married when YEHOVAH “impregnated” her, He would have committed adultery, which is a violation of the eighth commandment. Similarly, if she was only engaged/betrothed when YEHOVAH “impregnated” her, then He would have also committed adultery. Needless to say, YEHOVAH God will NEVER commit adultery — or break any other of His own Commandments!

YEHOVAH never does anything to his disciples, prophets, teachers, servants, etc. without first asking them if they would do it; how much more so in the case of “impregnating” someone? YEHOVAH simply does not force Himself upon people! The New Testament clearly states that Yeshua was “born under the law,” (Galatians 4:4) which is an unshakable indication that Yeshua was NOT conceived through either fornication or adultery.

Paul states, in Romans 1:3:

   Concerning His [spiritually begotten] Son, Messiah Yeshua, our Master [Teacher], which was made [created] of the [physical] seed [genetic DNA] of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH [purely physical].

Note that all of YEHOVAH's children are spiritually begotten! Not by some magic seed implanting mythological holy ghost, but by the renewing of the mind by the holy [righteousness seeking] spirit [mindset] of YEHOVAH God that has the power to change men's attitudes and raise them up in the First Resurrection.

This concept is further advanced in Romans 12:2:

   And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of YHVH.

Should We Follow Pagan Examples?

Some less knowledgeable Christians, Nazarenes, and Messianics might say, “Why should we limit the power of God?” To this I say, because YEHOVAH limits His own power to that of pure righteousness. YEHOVAH God NEVER deals in unrighteousness, even if He has the power to do so! Furthermore, YEHOVAH is not an unrighteous hypocrite! Why would YEHOVAH tell us not to follow the way of the heathen (pagans), and then turn around and do so Himself? The Virgin Birth began with the Babylonians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc. — long before the normal physical birth of the Messiah.

YEHOVAH God makes this plain in Deuteronomy 12:28-31:

   28 Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee forever, when thou doest that which is good and right [righteous] in the sight of the YEHOVAH thy LORD.

   29 When YEHOVAH thy LORD shall cut off the [pagan] nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them [pagan nations], and thou succeedest them [pagan nations], and dwellest in their land;

   30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them [pagan nations], after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their [pagan] gods, saying, How did these [pagan] nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

   31 Thou shalt not do so unto the YEHOVAH thy LORD: for every abomination to the LORD, which He HATES, have they done unto their [pagan] gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

The title of “Holy Virgin” was the title of the harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. It is this TITLE (not a pure form virgin reality) that was borrowed by the Greco-Roman church. The pagan title of “Holy Virgins” did not mean physical virginity at all; it meant simply “unmarried” (no husband). The function of these so called “Holy Virgins” was to dispense the Mother's (Ishtar's/Asterah's) grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become “Brides of god.” The Hebrews called the children of these unmarried harlot priestesses “Bathur,” which meant literally “Virgin Born.” The rest of the Hellenic pagan world had no language equivalent to the bizarre rituals of Ishtar, and mistranslated and misunderstood the literal Hebrew's terminology of “Bathur” as “Parthenioi”, also “virgin born” but in the sense of the physical (not spiritual) virginity.

Continuing With Matthew
The next verse shows that Mary and Joseph were not simply engaged by modern standards (a joke at best), but actually married.

   19 Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man [and not understanding the situation at this time], and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly [secret divorce].

Joseph was considering putting Mary away, because most everybody thought she was crazy. After all, she was extremely excited about being chosen to be the mother of the prophesied Messiah. Why should anyone believe she was sane? That is why an angel (aggelos or messenger) told Joseph to not be afraid. Why would Joseph be afraid to marry or cohabitate with a sane woman with whom he was already engaged (considered pre-married)? After all, Joseph knew she was a virgin when he fathered the Messiah.

Don't forget, uninspired Greco-Roman (Hellenized) Jewish translators cannot properly translate allegorical Scripture. They don't have “ears to hear” or “eyes to see.” Besides The Roman Catholic Church was more interested in appeasing the pagan people that they had conquered. Power was their game — not truth.

   20 But while he [Joseph] thought about these things [Mary's behavior], behold, an angel [Messenger] of the LORD [YEHOVAH the “Controller”] appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, Son [p
hysical seed] of David”, don't be afraid to take to yourself [cohabitate with your wife] Mary, YOUR WIFE, [see, they were married] for that which is conceived in her is [because of the influence] of the holy spirit [righteousness seeking attitude of love in her mind].

   21 She shall bring forth a son [your seed as per verse 16]. You shall call his name Yeshua, for it is he who shall SOZO [Strong's #4982, Sozo, DELIVER] his people [or his followers] from their sins.” [Not “save them” but “SHOW THEM THE WAY” — just like Moses delivered ancient Israel].

   22 Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD [YEHOVAH, the “Controller”] through the prophet, saying,

   23 “Behold, the MAIDEN [Strong's #G3933, Parthenos, a maiden or unmarried daughter or by implication only, a virgin] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;” which is, being interpreted, “YEHOVAH with us” [implying no longer separated from YEHOVAH God, because of Israel's sins].

   24 Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel [messenger] of the LORD [YEHOVAH] commanded him [in a dream], and [G#3880] took [as an intimate relationship] HIS WIFE unto [G#846] himself [they began permanent COHABITATION];

   25 and [G#1097] understood it not [didn't really understand what was happening], until [some time after] she had brought forth [G#5088] THEIR firstborn son. He named him Yeshua.

Considering the Spiritual Evidence

Now you can draw your own conclusions, but the following scriptural evidences must be considered:

1) Verse 16 positively identifies JOSEPH as the father or sire, as does Romans 1:3.

2) Righteousness was not compromised by premarital hanky panky as they truly loved one another and got married. This PROVES that YEHOVAH God judges the “intent of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). YEHOVAH has always judged the “intent of the heart,” as YEHOVAH God is stable and unchanging.
3) “Parthenos” is a virgin by implication only.

4) Why was Joseph having second thoughts? It appears to me that he was confused? Even Mary was disturbed at first (verse to follow)!

5) The holy spirit is YEHOVAH's righteous, active attitude of love — and NOT an entity or ghost like god.

6) The “so called” New Testament was canonized only by the one universal (Catholic) pagan church of ROME, which has proved herself to be the prophesied harlot of the Book of Revelation. So what did they do with the original Hebrew and Aramaic Gospels and Epistles? Why would they hide or possibly even destroy the original documents? There is never a good reason to hide the truth!

7) Verse 25 was definitely mistranslated through a preconceived bias, and required a search of Strong's Concordance in order to obtain the correct translation.

Important Note: In John 8:27, John 10:6 and John 12:16, the Greek word (G#1097) “gonosko” is translated as “understood” in the KJV Bible. It seems that the translators had a hidden bias and agenda, as there is a huge difference between the implication of “he knew her not” and “he understood her or it not”. Additionally her or it or their was not specified until the biased English translations came out.

   According to the Catholic Version of Luke

Luke 1:27-56:

   27 to a virgin [Strong's #G3933, Parthenos, a maiden or unmarried daughter or by implication only, a virgin] pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

   28 Having come unto her, the angel [Messenger] said, “Rejoice, you highly favored [under grace] one [a true worshipper of YEHOVAH God]! The LORD [YEHOVAH] is with you. Blessed are you among women!”

   29 But when she saw him, she was greatly troubled [even Mary was disturbed at first] at the saying, and considered what kind of salutation this might be.

   30 The angel said to her, “Don't be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor [grace] with YEHOVAH [the Self-existent Creator].

   31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and will call his name Yeshua.

   32 He will be great, and WILL BE called [NOT is already called the son of YEHOVAH] the Son of the Most High. The LORD [YEHOVAH] will give to him the throne of his father, David. [NOT the throne or position of YEHOVAH God, but the throne of Israel in the soon-coming Kingdom of YEHOVAH God].

   33 and he will reign over the House of Jacob [Israel] forever. There will be no end of his kingdom.”

   34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, seeing I am a virgin [unmarried maiden, not cohabitating with my husband, and not pregnant]?”

   35 The angel answered her, “the holy spirit [active force, “mindset” of YEHOVAH's righteous love] will come on you [enter into your mind], and the power of the Most High [YEHOVAH's Power] will overshadow [Strong's #1982, episkiazo, means to have righteous influence over] you. Therefore, also, the holy one which is to be born from you will [some day] be called the Son of YEHOVAH.

   36 Behold, Elizabeth [mother of John the Baptist], your relative, also has conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

   37 For no word from YEHOVAH will be void of power.”

   38 Mary said, “Behold, the handmaid [servant] of the LORD; be it to me according to your word” [Mary could hardly contain her excitement and willingness to comply]. The angel departed from her. [At this point Mary has no objection to becoming pregnant BY JOSEPH, and indeed is thinking about it all of the time].

   39 Mary arose in those days [already somewhat overshadowed with YEHOVAH's righteous influence], and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah,

   40 and entered into the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth [John, the Baptist's mother].

   41 It happened, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and [also] Elizabeth was filled with the [joy of the] Holy Spirit [of YEHOVAH's love]. [Excitement was “in the air” and the adrenaline was flowing]. [Additionally, it was Elizabeth's pregnancy AND YEHOVAH's righteous influence that truly fulfilled the “overshadowing” of Mary].

A great joyful emotion brought on by the holy spiritual feeling of righteous love, would cause a huge surge of adrenaline in Elizabeth's body that would have been transferred to her unborn baby. No doubt that they were both aware of the situation at hand.

There were no prepositions in the original Aramaic or Hebrew texts, and thus the translators added them haphazardly according to their bias. Statements in the Appendix of the Strong's Concordance, English words, specifically prepositions (of, to, for, from, by, etc.) and pronouns (he, she, it), are merely the rendering of some inflection (which is highly susceptible to bias), and can greatly alter the meaning of a sentence, as you shall see. After all, YEHOVAH God's inspired writings can only be interpreted or translated by YEHOVAH's inspired people — and NOT by “Pagan by Choice” hellenized Jews OR “Pagan by Choice” Roman Catholics OR Protestant Catholics (that's right, anyone who follows Catholic tradition is a Catholic in YEHOVAH's eyes).

   42 She called out with a loud voice [strong emotion], and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! [You see, Elizabeth was also excited and aware of the situation at hand].

   43 Why am I [Elizabeth] so favored, that the mother of [improperly applied preposition, which should imply for the purpose of, by the authority of OR to be a servant of] my [future] LORD [Strong's #2962, kurios, a generic term, as one with authority, as a controller only] should come to me? [Could Elizabeth have been speaking with a sense of future purpose? If not then this verse is con
tradictory to all of the rest of the verses, and shows improper translation].

   44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy! [adrenaline surge or emotional transfer by chemical means].

   45 Blessed is she who believed [Mary, a true worshipper], for there will be [a future purpose] a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her from the [present] LORD [controller]!”

   46 Mary said, “My soul [life] magnifies [brings praise to YEHOVAH God by my service to] the [present] LORD [Kurios, the controller, not necessarily YEHOVAH, but at this time YEHOVAH was the “Controller”].

   47 My spirit [attitude and character] has rejoiced in YEHOVAH my Savior,

   48 For He has looked at the humble state of his handmaid. For behold, from now on, all generations will call me blessed.

   49 For He who is mighty has done to [for] me great things; Holy is His name.

   50 His mercy is for generations of generations on those who fear Him.

   51 He has shown strength with His arm. He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart.

   52 He has put down princes from their thrones. Has exalted the lowly.

   53 He has filled the hungry with good things. He has sent the rich away empty.

   54 He has given help to Israel, His servant, that he might remember mercy

   55 [as he spoke to our fathers] toward Abraham and his seed forever.”

   56 Mary stayed with her about three months, and returned to her house [completely and righteously influenced or overshadowed by the spirit to perform YEHOVAH's Will for her. Mary had a YEHOVAH-inspired “mind set,” and nothing was going to stop her from serving YEHOVAH God].

Elizabeth was about six months pregnant when Mary went to stay with her. Mary stayed until John (the Baptist) was born about three months later. Could Mary's eagerness to give birth to the promised Messiah have been heightened by being with Elizabeth for three months? Absolutely, after all, she was very willing to serve YEHOVAH God by giving birth to the prophesied Messiah. However, YEHOVAH needed to have her wait in order to deliver Yeshua during the symbolic Sacred Seventh Month of Tishri; which varies between mid September and early October on the Gregorian Calendar of today, but definitely NOT on or near December 25th.

The length of time that passed after Mary's return home and the specifics that took place are not mentioned, but apparently more than enough time had passed for an anxious Mary and Joseph to become more acquainted, as an engaged couple, prior to the next verses. After all, she was influenced (overshadowed) to perform YEHOVAH's Will [early].

Luke 2:1-22:

   1 Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled [for Roman Tax purposes].

   2 This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

   3 All went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city.

   4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;

   5 to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged [wife without permanent cohabitation] to be married to him as wife [permanent cohabitation], being great [nearly full term] with child.

   6 It happened, while they were there, that the day had come that she should give birth.

   7 She brought forth her firstborn son, and she wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Note: They stayed in a three sided “Sukkah”, which is a temporary dwelling used during Sukkat (aka Succoth or The Feast of Booths). This event occurs every year during the Seventh Sacred Month of Tishri — between mid September and early October on the Roman Gregorian Calendar.

   8 There were shepherds in the same country staying in the field [NOT winter time], and keeping watch by night [mild nights] over their flock.

   9 Behold, an angel [aggelos or Messenger] of the LORD stood by them [the shepherds], and the glory of the LORD shone around them, and they [the shepherds] were terrified.

   10 The angel said to them [the shepherds], “Don't be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people.

   11 For there is born to you [Israelites], this day, in the city of David, a Savior, who is Messiah the lord [kurios].

   12 This is the sign to you: you [the shepherds] will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth, lying in a feeding trough.”

   13 Suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising YEHOVAH, and saying,

   14 “Glory to YEHOVAH in the highest [YEHOVAH is the Highest], On Earth peace, good will toward men.”

   15 It happened, when the angels went away from them into the sky, that the shepherds said one to another, “Let's go to Bethlehem, now, and see this thing that has happened, which the LORD [YEHOVAH] has made known to us.”

   16 They came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the feeding trough.

   17 When they saw it, they [the shepherds] publicized widely the saying which was spoken to them about this child.

   18 All who heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds.

   19 But Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart.

   20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising YEHOVAH for all the things that they had heard and seen, even as it was spoken to them.

   21 When eight days were fulfilled [a Purification Law and Ordinance] for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Yeshua, which was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

   22 When the days of their purification [issue of blood Ordinance] according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem [at the Temple], to present him to the Supreme Kurios [Kurios — The Present Controller OR YEHOVAH God].

It should be noted that the term Kurios, “Controller,” was a term that was being used for a position of authority that was, also, in a transitional state. As originally “The Controller” was YEHOVAH God, but YEHOVAH was preparing Yeshua to become “The Controller” or His “Proxy.” Mary, Elizabeth, and Joseph in general knew and understood this; therefore the ambiguity between their usage of the present and the future “Controller.”

Presently Yeshua the Messiah has been given ALL authority as “The Controller” by YEHOVAH God, as His “Proxy” — and yet Yeshua is still not YEHOVAH God, but “like YEHOVAH” in his spiritual mind set as are all of YEHOVAH's future children.

So did the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary take place? Answer: No!

Was Mary a physical virgin at the time of Yeshua's birth? Answer: No!

Was Mary a physical virgin at the time of Yeshua's conception? Answer: Yes!

Was Joseph the actual PHYSICAL FATHER? Answer: He had to be — OR the Epistle of Matthew is a complete fabrication, and not based on even vague truth! Of course, being “based on truth” does not necessarily make it completely true.

Was Yeshua the Messiah of the seed of King David? Answer: Absolutely! But David was not in heaven nor was he alive on Earth. Therefore, King David was the “lineage of the seed,” as was Abraham.  
This is corroborated by Acts 2:29:

   29 “Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

   30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that YEHOVAH had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, [YEHOVAH God is not flesh, and the holy spirit is a mental attribute] he would raise u
p the Messiah to sit on his [David's throne — NOT YEHOVAH's] throne,

   34 For David did not ascend into the heavens,…

Therefore, Yeshua the Messiah was a PHYSICALLY ORDINARY MAN, but “set apart” by YEHOVAH God for the purpose of YEHOVAH's Plan of Salvation. The Immaculate Conception is nothing more than the Immaculate Deception, the Virgin Birth is a non-issue, and Yeshua the Messiah completed his Earthly ministry, and has been given the authority of “Controller” for the Coming Kingdom of YEHOVAH God on Earth, after the first resurrection of the dead in the Messiah.

As I said before: Regardless of all of this — and even if Joseph's and King David's seed was supernaturally placed into the virgin womb of Mary — Mary's virginity still would not prove that the Messiah pre-existed or was God. It would still only prove that the Messiah was without a doubt the First Born or Eldest Son of Mary.

Even so, let it be known right now, that Yeshua the Messiah did not actually have to be the physical heir to the throne of David. The genealogy of the throne of David is not (I repeat NOT) necessarily a physical genealogy of first born sons nearly as much as it is the “Spiritually Righteous Lineage” to the “Righteous Throne of Righteous David” as the “Righteous Seed” (one seed: Galatians 3:16) of “Righteous Abraham”. Why would YEHOVAH God ever allow even the smallest possibility that an unrighteous physical heir to the throne of David be allowed to sit on the “Righteous Spiritual Throne” (right hand of YEHOVAH) in the “Coming Righteous Spiritual Kingdom” of the “Righteous Spiritual Father of Creation” during the “Spiritually Righteous Sabbath Millennium” just because he just happened to be the physical heir to the throne? Never! Never! Never! YEHOVAH God is not stupid or unrighteous! YEHOVAH never intended for His “Coming Spiritual Kingdom of Righteousness on Earth” to be ruled on the basis of physical inheritance; Even so, Yeshua the Messiah satisfied both requirements by being sired by a HUMAN FATHER (Joseph), and by his righteous OBEDIENCE to YEHOVAH God.

Just WHO Is the True Savior of Mankind?

THE TRUE SAVIOR OF MANKIND IS YEHOVAH GOD THE CREATOR!

Isaiah 43:11:

   I, even I, am the LORD [YEHOVAH is in Capital Letters]; and beside me there is no savior.

The Book of Isaiah has eight “savior” scriptures. In each of them we will find that the term “savior” means “one who saves” — which is EXACTLY what the One God YEHOVAH did throughout the Old Testament. This was a PHYSICAL saving, not a spiritual saving. Notice the following scriptures —

Isaiah 43, 45, 49, 60 and 63:

   Isaiah 43:3 For I am YEHOVAH your God, the Holy One of Israel, your SAVIOR.

   Isaiah 43:11 For I, even I, am YEHOVAH; and beside me there is no SAVIOR.

   Isaiah 45:15 Verily, you are a God that hides yourself, O God of Israel, the SAVIOR.

   Isaiah 45:21 …a just God and a SAVIOR; there is none beside me.

   Isaiah 49:26 …and all flesh shall know that I YEHOVAH am your SAVIOR and your Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

   Isaiah 60:16 …and you shall know that I YEHOVAH am your SAVIOR and your Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

   Isaiah 63:7-8 …lovingkindnesses of YEHOVAH…toward the House of Israel…they are my people…so He was their SAVIOR.

None of these scriptures proves that Yeshua the Messiah was the God of the Old Testament. Instead, “savior” is simply a description of ANOTHER FUNCTION of YEHOVAH God.

Now let us compare the Old Testament “savior scriptures” — which say that YEHOVAH God of the Old Testament is called Savior — with New Testament scriptures which say EXACTLY the same thing about the God of the New Testament!

Are there any New Testament scriptures that say YEHOVAH God is Savior — just as there are in the Old Testament? Believe it or not, YES!

   Luke 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in GOD my SAVIOR.

   I Timothy 1:1 GOD our SAVIOR.

   I Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of GOD our SAVIOR, who will have all men to be saved.

   I Timothy 4:10 Trust in the living GOD, who is the SAVIOR of all men.

   Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4 GOD our SAVIOR.

   Jude 25 To the ONLY wise GOD our SAVIOR.

So we see here that the One True God (John 17:3) is called “God the Savior” eight times (three times in Titus) in the New Testament. It is crystal clear that YEHOVAH God is called “the Savior” — the Father (Creator God) is a Savior God! Notice how consistent the Bible is regarding this point:

1) In the Old Testament the One God is called SAVIOR.
2) In the New Testament the One God is called SAVIOR.

The God of scripture is our Savior no matter where you read in the Bible. Our Creator created us to be in His Kingdom after we have been saved and resurrected. The God of Israel — the ONE God — is going to save us.

But what about the Messiah? Is he called the savior? Yes, the Messiah is called savior in at least 16 scriptures: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 12:23; Ephesians 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Peter 1:1; 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18 and 1 John 4:14.

It is likewise clear that Yeshua the Messiah is our savior. Also, there is NO QUESTION that YEHOVAH God the Father is our Savior. How can this be?

The answer is relatively simple. The One God our Father (YEHOVAH) is our Savior who will save us from the penalty of sin (often referred to as “salvation”). But HOW will YEHOVAH God implement this saving program? By Himself making the greatest sacrifice He COULD — notice!

   For God so loved the world that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in him [his sacrifice for our sins] should not perish [die eternally due to sin, i.e. not saved], but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

The One God (our Savior) has APPOINTED His Son, the first-born Son of our Savior God, to REPRESENT Him as our Savior — to be the PHYSICAL SACRIFICE made once and for all to pay for our sins.

So HOW will YEHOVAH God save us? By the DEATH of that descendant of David — that FULLY HUMAN BEING known as the Son of Man, the one born to be our Savior.

In the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament we find that the first mention of Yeshua is as Savior. Mary was found to be “with child” (verse 18 — see above) and would bear a son:

   Matthew 1:21 …and you shall call his name YESHUA [Yeshua = Yah saves] for he shall SAVE his people FROM THEIR SINS.

Yeshua will be the savior who must die for the sins of all mankind.

In Luke we read an interesting account about our Savior (YEHOVAH) God. First we read of Mary and “that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). When Mary went to visit Elizabeth, the babe in Elizabeth's womb “leaped for joy” at the knowledge of the Son of God in Mary's womb. And Mary praised the Savior (YEHOVAH) God:

   Luke 1:46-47 My soul does magnify the Lord [YEHOVAH], and my spirit has rejoiced in GOD MY SAVIOR.

Later — in Luke — we read:

   Luke 2:11 Unto you is born…a SAVIOR, which is Messiah the Lord.

Yeshua the Messiah is the Savior as the REPRESENTATIVE of the Savior (YEHOVAH) God.

The Book of Titus now becomes clear with respect to its use of the term “Savior.” Similar to the salutations of Paul's epistles, we find the term “savior” is used three times in pairs — pairs made up of (1) the Savior (YEHOVAH) God, and (2) the Savior Yeshua the Messiah.

Conclusion: It is the One God YEHOVAH who is our SAVIOR. He saves us THROUGH Yeshua our Savior — the Savior who could die since he was FULLY HUMAN (born of the union between Joseph and Mary) and NOT an ever living God-Being.

SOURCE

[Spock]

We are saved by faith, human sacrifice is alien to the gospel of Jesus.

Colter

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ July 16 2012,20:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2012,11:26) Quote (jammin @ July 15 2012,22:39) the man and a man. are they both created by nature??? the god and a god, are they both created by nature? jammin, This is not that hard.  The one and only Omniscient Creator of All Things did not beget the one and only Omniscient Creator of All Things.  Instead, that Most High God begat a not quite as high god.  That is why the second highest god in existence calls the Most High God “my God”. Think it out, man.  Does God Almighty have a God of His own?  YES or NO?  (Because Jesus does.) i still a have question for you boy dont see you that?? ill repeat the man and a man. are they both created by nature??? the god and a god, are they both created by nature? yes or no?

jammin,

Why do you keep asking ME more questions when you refuse to answer any of mine?

YES, the man and a man are both created.

NO, THE God is not created, but the Creator of all things.

YES, any god who is not THE God was created by THE God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 16 2012,20:44)

Mike, I do believe in the entire so-called “New Testament”.

Oh.  Then you DO believe these two scriptures?

Matthew 1
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke 1
31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2012,08:18)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 16 2012,20:44) Mike, I do believe in the entire so-called “New Testament”. Oh.  Then you DO believe these two scriptures? Matthew 1 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Luke 1 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

Mike,

Listen up Mike! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR PERVERSION OF SCRIPTURE!  

Do you believe in the entire so-called “New Testament”? If so, then you believe in the following passage, right?:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (1 John 5:7-8).

Was the Virgin Birth Doctrine Part of the Original Gospels?

The gospels of Mark and John say absolutely NOTHING about the virgin birth of the Messiah, and throughout assume Yeshua to have been of normal human birth. It is only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that the pagan fable of the virgin birth is introduced — and ONLY in the first two chapters of these gospels. The evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the “Virgin-birth” and “son of God” myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.

 By Jocelyn Rhys and John D. Keyser

The Evidence from the New Testament

The Epistles make no mention of a Virgin Birth, and such comparatively few references as there are to the Messiah in these — the earliest writings of our New Testament — do not in any case support the doctrine of his Virgin Birth, and sometimes appear quite incompatible with any such doctrine.

Neither the Epistles, nor the Acts, nor the Revelation refer either explicitly or even implicitly to a Virgin Birth. Some of the references which are made to Yeshua in these books seem to be compatible with the Gnostic doctrines of a divine soul incarnate in an ordinary human body, such as —

   “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5).

Here — and in the following verses — we are told that through the redemption, and by the spirit of one who was not begotten, but “sent forth” by YEHOVAH God, other men might also receive the “adoption of sons” and cry “Abba Father.”

Others seem to set forth the doctrine of a preexisting divine being who has no taint of humanity:

   “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God” (Hebrews 7:3).

This, however, is a reference to Melchizedek who left no record of his father, mother, ancestry, birth or death. It DOES NOT mean that Melchizedek was some sort of divine “preexistent” being any more than Yeshua was. There are several other individuals in the Bible who are named without their parents or ancestry — such as Abimelek. Historically we expect none of this for a figure who makes only a cameo appearance in the narrative. This is immaterial in that Paul is here only interested in the parallel with Melchizedek whereby the Messiah exercises his priesthood in heaven as a resurrected human being. Thus Yeshua's priesthood literally has no end — just as no end is reported of Melchizedek's life. This contrasts with the repeated changes of ministry in the Aaronic priesthood due to the deaths of the high priests.

Another example of this is found in I Timothy in some translations —

   “….our Lord Jesus Christ….who is the Blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of Lords; who alone has immortality and dwells in light inaccessible, whom no man has seen or can see…” (I Timothy 6:14-16, Authorized Catholic New Testament).

When correctly translated these verses read in whole as follows — “I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; and this [Yeshua's appearing] will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign [YEHOVAH God], the King of kings and Lord of lords, who [YEHOVAH God] ALONE has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see” (RSV). See also Exodus 33:18-23, Deuteronomy 10:17 and John 1:18. YEHOVAH God the Father alone is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” — NOT Yeshua the Messiah. No sign of a “preexistent” Messiah here!

Others seem to be compatible with the Gnostic “docetic” doctrine of a spiritual being clothed in the apparent likeness of man —

   “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3).

This, again, is not what it seems! YEHOVAH God did what his own teachings, instructions and commands could not, of themselves, do by “adopting” or choosing a HUMAN BEING with a nature just like our own sinful one to be His “Son” and representative on this earth. Although Yeshua was a normal human being, born of a human mother and father, with a truly human nature (Greek sarx, “flesh”), his “flesh” or “nature” was not like that of other human beings in that it was not sinful, and he did not sin. He encountered temptations just like we face every day of our lives, but he overcame them without sinning by the power of the holy spirit of YEHOVAH God. We, also, can overcome sin with the help of YEHOVAH's spirit.

Others again (and these the most numerous) teach the doctrine which — apparently at an early period — was held by all Christians, that Yeshua was a MAN who became the divine Messiah when YEHOVAH God raised him from the dead — up until which time he had been entirely human:

   “Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3-4).

   “Jesus Christ of the seed of David….” (II Timothy 2:8).

The divinity of Yeshua is even plainly denied and he is said, when he became “The Christ,” to not yet have been wholly divine —

   “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2:5).

The most striking thing about these passages (and a great many others of a similar nature), that might be quoted from the Epistles, is that the Virgin Birth is never mentioned though they, above all others, lend themselves to an explicit statement of the fact if it was known to the writers. They are intended as explanations of the nature of the Messiah. Would it not have been simpler — if the authors knew that such was the case — to state that YEHOVAH God had actually begotten Yeshua the Messiah?

Moreover, no references can be found in the Epistles to Mary or to Joseph, or to any other deta
ils of the birth story, though we are in one passage warned “neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies,” by a writer who may have heard rumors of some new teaching.

The Gospels, it is admitted by every one, were not yet in existence when these Epistles were written, and it is evident that the writers of the Epistles had either never heard of or did not believe in these stories of the birth and infancy of the Messiah.

The Acts of the Apostles, too, is written by an author who neither knows nor cares about the birth of Yeshua, and regards his life only as beginning with the baptism by John. This is distinctly stated in 1:22, in which the beginning is said to be “from the baptism of John”; and again in 10:37, in which it is stated that “the word” began “after the baptism which John preached.”

If, as is generally admitted, the author of the Acts is identical with the author of Luke's Gospel, this is further proof of the lateness of the introduction of the birth story into the Gospel. All the emphasis laid upon the baptism and the descent of the holy spirit would be unnecessary if the incarnation was a fact; yet not only Mark and John — but even Matthew and Luke — so emphasize the miraculous nature of this baptism by John.

According to the Acts, it is not only Paul who preaches that Yeshua is descended from David — “Of this man's [David's] seed hath God, according to his prophets, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus” (Acts 13:23) — but Peter, too, is described as teaching that the MAN Yeshua, the fruit of David's loins according to the flesh, became inspired by the holy spirit at his baptism. Notice Acts 10:38: “How God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” Also notice how Yeshua was not born, but EVENTUALLY MADE the Messiah: “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Since Mary was not of the line of David, all references to a descent from David must mean through Joseph.

Again, in “The Revelation” we find NOTHING about the Virgin Birth, but instead some texts that imply a natural descent through Joseph from David, as, for example, “I am the root and the offspring of David.”

The Gospel of Mark

When we turn from the Epistles to the earliest of the Gospels, that “according to St. Mark,” we still find no reference to the Virgin Birth, or even to the parentage or childhood of the Messiah.

This gospel is — in all likelihood — one of the original source documents upon which the other three gospel narratives were based. According to tradition Mark's gospel was said to have been based on the apostle Peter's verbal accounts of the Messiah's life and is sometimes referred to as “Peter's Memoirs.” Writes the sub-Apostolic Father Papias (about 70-155 A.D.) —

   He, the presbyter (John), said, Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered; but he did not write in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as I said, afterward followed Peter, who made his discourses to suite what was required, without the view of giving a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord. Mark, therefore, made no mistakes when he wrote down circumstances as he recollected them; for he was very careful of one thing, to omit nothing of what he heard, and to say nothing false in what he related.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Mark is found COMPLETE in Matthew, with the exception of numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes…In all, 31 verses are omitted.” Continuing, the Catholic Encyclopedia says that “parts peculiar to Matthew are numerous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are distinctly his own” (x, 60, 61).

According to the New Commentary (Pt. III, p. 127-128) — “These 'MATTHEAN ADDITIONS,' as they are called,…seem to be authentic when they relate our Lord's words; but when they relate INCIDENTS, they are extremely questionable.”

This bodily copying from Mark, with so many “omissions” and “additions,” implies “a very free treatment of the text of Mark in Matthew and Luke (a freedom which reaches a climax in the treatment of Mk. 10:17f. in Mt. 19:16f.)….Just as the latter (Matthew) tampered more with the Markan order than St. Luke did” (New Commentary, Pt. III, 36, 40).

However, this textual tampering is well explained by the apologists for the Catholic Church: “Nor need such freedom surprise us. Mark, at the time when the others used it, had not attained anything like the status of Scripture, and an evangelist using it would feel free, or might indeed feel bound, to bring its contents into line with the traditions of the particular Church [read, Catholic] in which he lived and worked”! (Ibid., p. 36).

The story related by Mark begins with the appearance of Yeshua “from Nazareth of Galilee,” to be baptized by John in the Jordan, and at that ceremony to receive the spirit of YEHOVAH God which distinguished him from other men.

Mark never mentions the name of Joseph, and refers to Yeshua himself as the carpenter in the passage corresponding to the one in which Matthew speaks of the carpenter's son — and to the one in which Luke speaks of the son of Joseph. He appears to know nothing at all of the birth of Yeshua, either natural or supernatural. He is concerned only with explaining how Yeshua became imbued with the spirit of YEHOVAH God.

Matthew and Luke

After Mark the next Gospels in order of appearance were Matthew and Luke; but before we consider these we will refer to John, the latest of our Canonical Gospels. John too makes no reference to the Virgin Birth — and has texts which preclude it. John recounts that others regarded Yeshua as the son of Joseph. Philip says (1:45): “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The Judahites say (6:42): “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” On these sayings the evangelist passes no comment, such as might be expected if the Virgin Birth story was known to or believed in by him.

If we assume — as the Churches most unwarrantably assumed — that John (“the disciple whom Jesus loved”) wrote the Gospel and the Epistles which bear his name, the silence of the evangelist is still more strange. He, above all others, would have been the disciple most intimately acquainted with the history of Yeshua; yet he says nothing about any supernatural birth — an event most worthy of notice had he known of it, or even ever heard it mentioned.

According to John and to the other evangelists, all the disciples and followers of Yeshua looked upon Joseph as his father; and Yeshua himself makes no claim to a supernatural origin — unless his reference to his metaphorical Father be strained to imply such a claim.

Thus neither the authors of the Epistles, which are the earliest of our New Testament books, nor the authors of the earliest and the latest of our four Canonical Gospels, make any mention of a Virgin Birth.

Notice what Philip Jenkins, in his book Jesus Wars, has to say about this —

   “The idea of the virgin birth is unquestionably present in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but elsewhere in the New Testament the idea LEAVES NOT A TRACE. Among Paul's epistles, Galatians speaks of God sending his Son, 'born of a woman,' but neither here nor elsewhere does Paul suggest anything unusual about Jesus' conception or birth. Although Paul could have written explicitly 'of a virgin,' instead he uses the word FOR WOMAN, gyne/gynaikos. Two of the gospels, Mark and John, make no reference to a birth story for Jesus, and neither did the hypothetical lost gospel Q. Nor do early alternative gospels like Thomas. Even in Matthew and Luke, the virgin birth idea NEVER reappears after the initial chapters: it is not mentio
ned in Luke's sequel to his gospel, the book of Acts” (HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 2010, page 44).

Jenkins then goes on to say:

   “And although some would argue that Revelation refers to Mary and her child, the text is open to debate, and in any case, it DOES NOT speak of a virgin birth, In the New Testament, at least, NO apostle or Christian preacher ever tries to convince an audience by stories of Jesus' miraculous conception or birth, or of a manger surrounded by angels or kings….the idea makes little impact on the so-called apostolic fathers, the Christian thinkers from the period between about 90 and 140” (ibid., pp. 44-45).

The Greek Gospels according to Matthew and Luke are our ONLY authorities for the story, and they were not written until about the middle of the first half of the second century.

Then, for the first time, more than a century after the date assigned to the birth of Yeshua (and nearly a century after the date assigned to his death) appears the first mention of the Virgin Birth — a dogma which the Catholic Church subsequently made orthodox. This is a belief in which most “Christian” Churches to this day still insist on treating as a test of orthodoxy — in spite of the fact that the bulk of educated modern opinion is against it. No man can take orders in the Established Church of England unless he avows his belief in this miracle, although many of the better-educated clergy have ceased to credit it, and although even the Bishop of one of the most important dioceses put forward an appeal that it should no longer be regarded as an essential part of the creed.

Even if a much earlier date be assigned to the publication of these two Gospels, the argument against the doctrine on the score of lateness is not impaired. No scholar, however orthodox, denies that the Epistles are the earliest Christian documents in our Canon, or that the Epistles contain no reference to the Virgin Birth story, or that the Gospels were not written until at least three-quarters of a century after the date assigned to the birth of Yeshua. So even the most conservative confess that the story first appears in two comparatively late documents, and that it is peculiar to these two out of all the other New Testament scriptures. Our “witnesses” are two. As we have already seen, neither of them is a firsthand witness. Let us, however, examine their evidence.

“Matthew's” Genealogy

The accounts given of this event by Matthew and by Luke differ in almost every single detail, so it will be more convenient to consider each Gospel separately, except in so far as they have any correspondence. Matthew begins with a genealogy of Yeshua showing his descent — the expected descent of the Messiah who would, according to the literal interpretation of the prophets, resuscitate the ancient glories of Israel as a conquering king — through Solomon and David (by the wife of Uriah the Hittite), and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham.

This genealogy must have been in existence before the Virgin Birth story was thought of because, if the latter be true, the genealogy is worthless. Unless Joseph was the father of Yeshua the Messiah, there could be no object in tracing the pedigree of Joseph; and if Joseph was the father of Yeshua, the Virgin Birth story is not true!

The genealogy begins as “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,” and ends (in its present form) with the words: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

Now, if Joseph was only the husband of Mary and not the father of Yeshua, the genealogy has no value or meaning as an account of the generation of Yeshua; and Yeshua is not shown to be “the son of David,” as is insisted upon throughout the Gospel. Verse sixteen has evidently been altered to suit the new doctrine of the Virgin Birth; and that this was the case is made all the more certain by the fact that in many old manuscript versions of Matthew it is actually stated that “Joseph begat Jesus.”

In what is probably the oldest surviving manuscript version of “the Gospel according to St. Matthew,” verse sixteen runs: “Jacob begat Joseph; and Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed, begat Jesus who is called the Christ” — a version which makes the genealogy applicable to Yeshua, but which contradicts the virginity of Mary. Moreover, in this Sinaitic Syriac version the words, “to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed,” are undoubtedly an interpolation. The original must have been simply “Joseph begat Jesus” — as in the other later manuscripts to which reference has already been made.

Evidently the original genealogy was written when the Virgin Birth story was unknown, and verse sixteen is an attempt to reconcile the older story of a descent from David with the later story of a Virgin Birth. Further evidence that this was the case will appear as we continue our study of the Gospel.

Two Genealogies Compared

Leaving this question aside for the moment, we will examine the genealogy itself and compare it with the genealogy given in Luke. Including YEHOVAH God, who is put down as the father of Adam, Luke specifies seventy-seven names whereas Matthew — who omits the first twenty-one of these names — specifies only forty-one. Thus the pedigree given by Matthew, even after making allowance for the omission of the pre-Abrahamite ancestors, is fifteen generations shorter than that of Luke.

Matthew, presumably in an attempt to obtain the symmetry of three groups of fourteen generations each (to which he refers in 1:17) misses out some of the names given in the corresponding genealogy in Chronicles, and mentions Rachab (Rahab) as the mother of Boaz — thus erroneously connecting as mother and son persons who, according to the Old Testament, lived three hundred years apart from each other.

Still more important is the fact that after the name of David, whose pedigree is in both cases taken from the Old Testament, the two lists differ almost entirely. Between David and Joseph there are only two names common to both lists, Zorobabel and Salathiel; and these, which are taken from the Old Testament genealogies, come nine generations further back in Luke than in Matthew.

It would, indeed, be an extraordinary thing if the carpenter Joseph could trace an unbroken line of descent for about four thousand years back to Adam. However the authors of these two Gospels pretend that they could do so for him and as (ex hypothesi) they were inspired, both their genealogical trees are correct! How both can be correct and true, when they differ almost entirely in their versions from David downwards, the orthodox have never succeeded in explaining! Both seek to show that Yeshua, as the son of Joseph, descended from David as had been foretold; yet both subsequently or previously explained that Yeshua had no earthly father.

It is unnecessary to deal further with these genealogies because such incongruities as the different number of generations used by “Matthew” and “Luke” (in an attempt to make them fit with the chronology found in the Old Testament) renders these genealogies pure inventions and utterly incompatible with each other and the genealogies found in I Chronicles.

Isaiah's “Virgin Birth”

After supplying us with the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives an account of “the Annunciation.” Here again the version of Matthew (1:18-21) differs entirely from the version of Luke (1:26-35).

In Matthew it is Joseph who is informed by an angel of the expected miracle, whereas in Luke it is Mary herself who is so informed. Matthew does not tell us how or when Mary heard the news and Luke is equally silent as regards Joseph — who apparently accepts the situation described in chap. 2:5 without having ever received any explanation of it.

Matthew proceeds to explain that the event which is to take place is the fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah (7:14) regarding a “virgin” who would bring forth a son. This explanation is based upon a MISTRANSLATION. Matthew (or
rather the pseudo-Matthew) is quoting from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. In the original Hebrew the word “almah” is used, and this word means only a “young woman.” In the Greek text the word “parthenos” (virgin) is used, but probably only in its metaphorical sense.

The original prophecy merely foretold that SOME young woman would give birth to a son from whom great things might be expected. The Hebrew word for “virgin” is frequently used in the Old Testament and would, presumably, have been used in this passage of Isaiah if a virgin had really been meant! But the word for “young woman” having actually been used, the misleading translation in the Septuagint cannot give the “prophecy” a new meaning.

Moreover, Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, and is obviously referring to some event that will take place very shortly. Ahaz would hardly be comforted by an assurance that an event (however desirable) would take place about seven hundred and fifty years later. He wants to know whether there is any prospect of his present troubles coming to an end, and Isaiah foretells that a child will shortly be born and that before it grows up both Syria and Ephraim shall have fallen. The “prophecy” might be considered fulfilled when Ahaz or Isaiah himself had sons born to them — events which took place soon after the interview between them that is recorded in this chapter of Isaiah.

The desire to point to Old Testament texts which could be looked upon as prophetic is noticeable throughout the New Testament and similar writings of the same period. This habit of quotation is nowhere more striking than in the stories of the Virgin Birth. Matthew is especially prone to quote “the scriptures” as evidence of the facts which he relates. These quotations are used as arguments for the facts stated, and the inconsequent nature of some of these arguments must now be apparent to every one.

It was different in early New Testament times. The Church Fathers — in their arguments with those who did not believe in the Virgin Birth story — did not adduce evidence from the facts, but used quotations from “the prophets” to determine what facts should, if the prophets competence was admitted, be expected. To Jews these “prophecies” were sacred and, by paralogism, proofs of any event which was said to be a fulfillment of them. When Justin's opponent, imaginary or real, is not convinced by his first arguments, he hurls a few more quotations at him. So too pseudo-Matthew. Because Isaiah had said “A virgin [?] shall conceive and bear a son,” and because some Jews thought that this might refer to the birth of a future Messiah, and because he — the author of the first two chapters of the book of Matthew — is setting out to prove that Yeshua was that Messiah, therefore Yeshua must have been born of a virgin. That is his argument.

It would be not be right to ridicule those who accepted such quotations for arguments. Paralogisms are too often, even today, accepted for syllogisms. But it is necessary to point out that such fallacious substitutes for logic were, for many centuries, the chief stock-in-trade of theologians — and even of those theologians who, in other respects, were astute and skillful dialecticians. With this in mind we should be able to understand how it was that the writers of the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke told two entirely different stories about the same alleged event.

Their evidence, in both cases, consisted of “prophecies.” So that what was written by some ancient author might be fulfilled, Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Egypt had to play their respective parts in the story. Each editor had the same evidence — the ancient Jewish scriptures of the last seven centuries or more — and each used that evidence as he thought best.

The really remarkable thing about all this is that later generations should accept two entirely conflicting sets of evidences as both being correct!

Massacre of the Children

In chapter 2 Matthew goes on to relate how Herod the King sends for the chief priests and the scribes — the very people who live in hopes of the advent of a Messiah who will deliver them from the rule of foreigners and of kings selected by foreigners — and asks them where their deliverer (according to the prophets) is to be born. They, in their innocence of heart, tell him where his future rival ought to be found!!?

Luke knows nothing of all this, nor of the “slaughter of the innocents,” which Matthew next tells of. Neither does Josephus — the great Jewish historian who lived so soon after this time and who wrote at such great length about Herod's reign — make any mention of this murder of all children of two years old and under. No historian appears ever to have heard of this wholesale massacre, though it would hardly have escaped notice if it really took place. There are numerous parallels to this story, and in a very large number of mythologies the divine hero narrowly escapes from such an attempt on the part of a king to destroy his predestined rival.

Matthew goes on to relate how the holy family fled to Egypt (a journey unknown to Luke) and how, when Herod the Great died, Joseph feared to return to Judea because Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great, was “king” of that country (“did reign in Judaea” in the Authorized Version).

Yet he went to Galilee which was ruled over by Antipas — another of Herod's sons — because the prophecy, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” had to be fulfilled!

With this episode ends the second chapter of Matthew and all reference to a Virgin Birth. In chapter 3 the story STARTS AGAIN with an account like Mark's of Yeshua becoming the Messiah or anointed one by the inspiration of the holy spirit at his baptism. From this point forward we hear nothing of the miraculous birth but much, as we shall see later, that is quite irreconcilable with it. The first two chapters of Matthew are an addition to a story which would be complete without them, and which is inconsistent with them.

The Gospel of the Ebionites

Amongst the earliest followers of the Messiah were a group known as the Ebionites. The Ebionite movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptist and, later, Yeshua the Messiah. They were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding areas and led by “James the Just” — the oldest brother of the Messiah. They flourished between the years 31-80 A.D. They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the commandments (mitzvot) as enlarged upon by their Rabbi and Teacher, but also accepted non-Jews into their fellowship.

The term “Ebionite” derived from the Hebrew word Evyonim, meaning “Poor Ones,” and was evidently taken from the teachings of Yeshua — “Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones.

Writes Alister McGrath —

   “Most scholars consider that early second-century Ebionitism was characterized by a 'low Christianity' — that is, an understanding of Jesus of Nazareth that interprets him as spiritually superior to ordinary human beings but not otherwise distinct. In this approach, Jesus of Nazareth was a human being who was singled out for divine favor by being possessed [poor word choice, YEHOVAH God DOES NOT 'possess' anyone — JDK] by the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to, yet more intensive than, the calling of a Hebrew prophet” (Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 2009, page 106).

By the late 2nd Century a split occurred amongst these mostly Jewish followers of the Messiah. The distinction the early Catholic writers make (and, remember, they universally despised these people and called them “Judaizers”) is that the Ebionites rejected Simon Magus (whom the Catholic writers confused with the apostle Paul) and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or “divinity” of Yeshua. They used only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and were thus more “extr
eme” in their Judaism.

They describe the Nazarene split-off more positively as those who accepted the teachings of Simon Magus (with caution) and believed in some aspect of the divinity of Yeshua (virgin born, etc.).

As far as the beliefs of the Ebionites are concerned the documents of the New Testament — when critically evaluated — are among our best sources. These are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition as well as the text of “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut — and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from these and other sources we can say that the Ebionite movement can be distinguished by the following views —

1) The Ebionites did NOT believe that Yeshua the Messiah preexisted. The Ebionite Christians did not have the New Testament (with the exception of the book of Matthew) and everything they understood was based on the Old Testament and on those who personally heard the Messiah — or his disciples — preach. For them, Yeshua was the Son of God NOT because of his divine nature but because of his “adoption” by YEHOVAH God to be His son. This kind of understanding is, accordingly, often called “adoptionist.”

2) The Ebionites did NOT believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah. They believed that Yeshua was a real flesh-and-blood human being like the rest of us — born as the oldest son of the sexual union of his parents, Joseph and Mary.

“What set Jesus apart from all other people,” writes Bart D. Ehrman, “was that he kept God's law perfectly and so was the most righteous man on earth. As such, God chose him to be his son and assigned to him a special mission, to sacrifice himself for the sake of others.” Continues Ehrman, “Jesus then went to the cross, not as a punishment for his own sins but for the sins of the world, a perfect sacrifice in fulfillment of all God's promises to his people…As a sign of his acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice, God then raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heaven” (Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 101).

3) Since the Ebionites believed that Yeshua was the perfect, ultimate and final sacrifice for sin, then there was no longer any need for the ritual sacrifice of animals in the Temple. These sacrifices, therefore, were understood by them to be a temporary and imperfect measure provided by YEHOVAH God to atone for humanity's sins until the perfect atoning sacrifice of the Messiah should take place. As a result, any Ebionites that lived prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. did NOT participate in the sacrificial practices of that Temple.

4) The Ebionites restricted activities on the weekly Sabbath and did NOT eat pork or any other of the forbidden foods of Leviticus 11.

5) The Ebionites insisted that there was only ONE true God and held to the laws of the Old Testament which they saw as the revelation of that ONE true God.

6) The Ebionites observed all the holy days of YEHOVAH God, such as Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana.

7) The Ebionites rejected the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses — including scribal alterations of the texts of the Bible (Jeremiah 8:8).

8) The Ebionites saw Simon Magus, with his teaching of justification by faith in the Messiah APART from the works of the law, as the arch heretic of the church.

9) The Ebionites strongly believed that Yeshua was a prophet like Moses who will rule in the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God as king and priest under YEHOVAH God Himself. Even in the New Testament there is abundant evidence that Yeshua had the status of a prophet. As a result, some of his disciples regarded him as the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah, with whom John the Baptist had also been identified. Yeshua combined the roles of prophet AND Messiah. This was not unprecedented, for his ancestors David and Solomon were also regarded in Jewish tradition as endowed with the holy spirit, which had enabled them to write inspired works.

Yeshua, however, was not an author of inspired writings, but he belonged to the ranks of the non-literary, wonder-working prophets such as Elijah and Elisha. “Such a prophet,” writes Hyam Maccoby, “had never before combined his prophetic office with the position Messiah or King, but there was nothing heretical about the idea that the Messiah could be a prophet too. Such a possibility is envisaged in the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, where the Messiah is described as an inspired person and as having miraculous powers like a prophet. This assumption of a prophet role distinguished Jesus from the more humdrum Messiah figures of his period such as Judas of Galilee or, later, Bar Kokhba” (The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: Harper & Row, 1987).

Therefore, the Ebionite belief that Yeshua the Messiah had the status of a prophet was not at all inconsistent with their belief that he was the king of Israel who would restore the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God to this earth on his return. To be both king and prophet (and priest — see Hebrews) meant that Yeshua was not just an interim Messiah, like Bar Kokhba — sent to deliver the Jews from another wave of Gentile oppression — but the FINAL, culminating Messiah who would inaugurate the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God on Earth, as envisaged by the Old Testament prophets. This would be a time of world peace and justice, when the knowledge of YEHOVAH God would cover the Earth “as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9).

10) The Ebionites accepted the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew — without the first two chapters — as their sole New Testament scripture, with the possibility of several other books such as their own Gospel of the Ebionites. Explains Bart Ehrman — “Obviously they retained the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as the Scripture par excellence. These people were Jews, or converts to Judaism, who understood that the ancient Jewish traditions revealed God's ongoing interaction with his people and his Law for their lives….The Ebionites did have other “Christian” texts as part of their canon, however. Not surprisingly, they appear to have accepted the Gospel of Matthew as their principal scriptural authority. Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic [or, the ORIGINAL Aramaic text BEFORE being translated into Greek? — JDK]….It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin — a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well” (Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 101-102).

Writes Philip Jenkins —

   “…the earliest church saw Jesus AS A MAN, and only later and retroactively was he promoted to Godhood. This elevation was associated especially with the Roman Empire's conversion to Christianity and events like the Council of Nicea in 325. Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code argues that Nicea was the moment at which Jesus became God, as a result of power plays in the empire and church: HE OWED HIS GODHOOD TO MAJORITY VOTE” (Jesus Wars, HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 2010, p. 50).

The Wonders of “Luke”

If we now turn to the Gospel according to Luke, we find a totally different story of the so-called Virgin Birth. Here Luke piles wonder upon wonder.

First the angel Gabriel (who usually stands in the presence of YEHOVAH God (verse 19)) appears to Zacharias and announces that his wife Elizabeth — though, like Sarah, barren and now stricken in years — will give birth to a son, and that Zacharias himself will
be struck dumb for venturing to doubt that this wonder will come to pass. Then follows the Annunciation to Mary that she will give miraculous birth to a son, who will be given “the throne of his father David,” and will “reign over the house of Jacob for ever.”

Then the miraculous foreknowledge of Elizabeth (and of her unborn babe) about Mary's great destiny.

Then the beautiful Magnificat, certainly a remarkable literary production if really the words of Mary.

Then Zacharias' recovery of his voice and the miraculous naming of the child John (the Baptist) and another beautiful literary production, the Benedictus, curiously resembling in style the outpouring of Mary recorded a few verses earlier. Then the story of the census, the announcement to the shepherds, the angel, and the multitude of the heavenly host.

Then follows the miraculous recognition of “the Lord's Christ ” by Simeon who — again in the same literary style as Zacharias and Mary — speaks the Nunc Dimittis, another beautiful little poem.

Finally another miraculous recognition, this time by the “prophetess Anna”; and then the anecdote about the child Yeshua's precocity in the temple.

After that chapter 3 begins, and the story makes a fresh start — at the same moment in the life of Yeshua as that in Mark — with John the Baptist's preaching in the wilderness and the baptism of the Messiah.

So in Luke, as in Matthew, it is the first two chapters alone which mention the Virgin Birth. But, since Luke's account of that event differs so widely from Matthew's both cannot be correct. Let us examine it more closely, in order to see whether it be the more or the less credible of the two. Some of Luke's statements have already been referred to while we were examining Matthew's account. Of the others the first which we need notice is verse 32 of chapter 1. The angel here states that Yeshua will be given “the throne of his father David.'' Now, it is only through Joseph that Yeshua is said to be descended from David, so this statement of the angel is inconsistent with the Virgin Birth story. Why, moreover, should the betrothed Mary ask the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” ? Nothing has been said about any immediate birth: she has only been told that at some future date she will give birth to a son who will become a great personage.

The natural conclusion to which she would come would be that this son — with the great destiny in store for him — would be the fruit of her approaching union with Joseph. There is no apparent reason for her question. It seems to be introduced merely for the sake of the answer, and to give an opportunity to definitely state the virginity, and to infer that the physical process of generation was carried out by YEHOVAH God. Otherwise the overshadowing by the power of the Highest might be taken metaphorically, and the story thought to differ from that in Mark only in the fact that the holy spirit entered into Yeshua before, instead of after, his birth. This interpretation would be all the more likely, since the holy spirit was generally regarded as feminine. Luke is here emphasizing the doctrine that the divinity of Yeshua was obtained physically and not spiritually.

Luke in his third chapter (like Matthew in his) passes on to the baptism, which formed the starting-point of the original Gospel — that of Mark. After this one episode in Jerusalem there is an absolute blank, and then the story begins again with an episode which fits in well with Mark's story (or with the remainder of Luke's own story) but which joins on very badly to the Virgin Birth story which precedes it.

At the baptism a voice from heaven proclaims, “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased”; thus paraphrasing the words of Psalm 2:7, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” The paraphrase, which is the work of some late editor, was necessitated by the Virgin Birth story. Originally this chapter of Luke taught, as Mark teaches, that Yeshua became the divine Son by the descent of the holy spirit into him. Eventually the text was altered in order to conform, as far as possible, with the Virgin Birth story. “This day have I begotten thee” became “In thee I am well pleased.”

The original words are, however, still to be found in the Acts (13:33) and in the Epistles (Hebrews 1:5). In the former they are apparently connected with the Resurrection by which, according to many early Christians, Yeshua became the Christ or anointed one. In the latter they are used as an explanation of YEHOVAH's promise: “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son.” The same words are again quoted by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in v, 5.

The idea of YEHOVAH God metaphorically begetting a son by inspiring a man at his baptism is, it is hardly necessary to add, totally distinct from the idea of YEHOVAH God physically begetting a son from a human mother. But the editors who attempted to bring the Gospel into conformity with its first two (new) chapters could not, it appears, harden their hearts sufficiently to eliminate the last sixteen verses of the third chapter. So we now come to Luke's genealogy, and find it preceded by the curious “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” Evidently the “as was supposed” is an interpolation, as the whole genealogy is without any bearing on the story unless it is that of Yeshua through his father Joseph!

The genealogy differs in several respects from that given in Matthew. Of the differences the most important is that by Luke the descent is traced through David's son Nathan — instead of through his son Solomon, as it is by Matthew. Consequently, from that point downwards, the pedigrees differ in all the names but two — Salathiel and Zorobabel — which are (in such lists unaccountably) the same. The father of Joseph (and seventeen more of his predecessors before we reach Zorobabel) in Luke differ in name from the father of Joseph and the eight other predecessors before we reach Zorobabel in Matthew. Both authors agree that Salathiel was the father of Zorobabel, but they differ in the name given to the former's father and in the names given to all his ancestors until David is reached. From David to Abraham the lists agree. Then Matthew ceases. But Luke continues up to “Adam, which was the son of God,” following with but one small slip the lists given in 1 Chronicles 1:1-4 and 24-27.

But the disagreement between Matthew and Luke about the names of the ancestors of the Messiah (noteworthy though it is as showing that these evangelists could not both have been inspired or even well informed) is not so important as the mere fact that the genealogy of Joseph is given in spite of the assertion in the first chapter that Joseph was not the father of the Messiah. We are evidently dealing with an earlier tradition, which the editor of the later Gospel is loath to part with, even when the Virgin Birth story has been added.

The Earliest Edition of Luke

That the earliest edition of Luke did NOT contain the Virgin Birth story is now admitted by most commentators. The Gospel according to Luke, which Marcion used, began — like Mark's — with the baptism of Yeshua. It did not contain anything about the birth of Yeshua. Irenaeus complains that Marcion “mutilated the Gospel according to Luke, taking away all that is recorded of the generation of the Lord, and many parts of his discourses in which he recognizes the Creator of the Universe as his Father.” But Justin Martyr (though he made a fierce attack upon Marcion) does not refer to any such mutilations — and seems to have himself been ignorant of any Gospel according to Luke.

Now, Marcion — afterwards branded as a heretic — was the leader, even on the admission of the “orthodox” Tertullian (150-220) himself, of a very large proportion of the Christians of his day. And for two hundred years more Marcionites were the closest rivals of the sect which was subsequently called Catholic.

Marcion
and Justin Martyr were contemporaries. They flourishing in the first half of the second century, while Irenaeus lived in the second half of the second century. So it appears highly probable that the Gospel used by Marcion formed the foundation of the Gospel afterwards known as “according to St. Luke.” Instead of Marcion taking away passages from Luke, it was the redactor of Luke who added passages to the Gospel used by Marcion. This is the conclusion at which many commentators have arrived, though others still dispute it.

We need not further consider the arguments regarding this, but need only to note that the Marcionites rejected the early chapters of Luke — if indeed they had ever heard of them. And not only the Marcionites, but other sects of Christians — afterwards to be classed as heretics — had likewise never heard of this story of Luke's, or repudiated it as a fiction when they did, saying that it was full of errors and self-contradictions. And, similarly, many men, even in later days, who accepted the Gospel of Matthew as “Holy Scripture,” repudiated the first two chapters, and believed that the MAN Yeshua became the Christ or anointed one by the inspiration of the holy spirit at his baptism.

The first two chapters were evidently regarded as late additions to the original text which began, as Mark also did, with the baptism of the Messiah. Epiphanius records that the Matthew Gospel used by the Ebionites did not contain the first two chapters. He also wrote about Cerinthus, a Christian author of the early second century, who had taught that “at the baptism God caused a real divine force which is named Christ to descend upon Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary.”

Justin, in the middle of the second century (and other early Fathers of the Catholic Church) continually refer to those Christians who denied the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, who believed that Yeshua was a MAN and not a god, who used versions of Matthew which stated that “Joseph begat Jesus,” and who repudiated the Virgin Birth story as an afterthought of the Gospel editors.

In connection with the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke, it is worth noting that Justin Martyr, who wrote (apparently in ignorance of our Canonical Gospels) in the middle of the second century also gives a pedigree of the Messiah — but traces it through Mary and not through Joseph. He thereby makes his genealogy compatible with the story of the Virgin Birth, which, however, he relates differently from both the stories in our Gospels. Other Gospels, now classed as apocryphal, do the same.

We are therefore faced with the following choices —

1) of discarding the Canonical Gospels and accepting the apocryphal works which give a story that at any rate does not in this respect contradict itself, or

2) of accepting a self-contradictory story from the recognized Gospels, or

3) of discarding all the stories of the Virgin Birth and not believing that this stupendous miracle ever took place.

Evolution of the Virgin Birth Fable

The evolution of the Virgin Birth story from the earlier story of the inspiration of Yeshua by the spirit of YEHOVAH God at his baptism, may be traced in the now apocryphal, but then accepted, Gospels. At first we find the episode of the baptism by John much as it is described by Mark but instead of the voice from heaven saying “Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” it says “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” That is to say that by the descent of the “Spirit like a dove” upon him he becomes the spiritual Son of YEHOVAH God; that he was not born the Son of YEHOVAH God, but only became so metaphorically on “this day” when the spirit of YEHOVAH God descended upon him.

The “this day I have begotten thee” is the older version — to be found in “The Memoirs of the Apostles” and in various other works founded perhaps upon these “memoirs.” It is of course a quotation from Psalm 2:7, and was therefore probably introduced into the narrative, like so much else, in order to show that a “prophecy” had been fulfilled. The birth stories are full of such episodes and sayings introduced for that purpose. Many of the Apocryphal Gospels state that the birth took place in a cave, as that would, the authors attempted to show, be a fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies. Every manner of permutation and combination of Nazareth and Bethlehem as Joseph's permanent home or temporary dwelling place is tried in different Gospels, in order to show that the Messianic prophecies had been fulfilled.

This necessity for proving that the prophecies had been fulfilled is naively confessed by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho. The latter is supposed to ask why it was necessary, if Yeshua was already the Son of YEHOVAH God, that he should again receive the holy spirit at his baptism, to which Justin replies that it was only necessary because the prophecies must be fulfilled.

At the time when this dialogue was written — about the middle of the second century — the true Church of YEHOVAH God and other Christians were disputing the new theory of the divine birth, and maintaining that Yeshua was a MAN born like other men but imbued, at his baptism, with the divine spirit.

The next step was, apparently, to quote both versions of the words spoken from heaven, as is done in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and finally the present canonical version of the episode was written and retained by the increasingly powerful sect which was afterwards to call itself CATHOLIC.

Thus the story has evolved. At first we find a story about a follower of John the Baptist who became a great teacher, imbued with religious genius; then an episode is added of a human voice which proceeded from YEHOVAH God announcing that this teacher is divinely endowed; then the complete story (in various versions) of a divine birth. As the (subsequently) Catholic sect became all-powerful, the older narratives were discarded and classed as apocryphal — and the narratives which gave support to the “orthodox” doctrine were accepted as canonical. The former were, as far as possible, suppressed; the latter encouraged and copied and edited for the purpose of making the doctrine known to all Christians.

If we take the Canonical Gospels as a guide to the time when the Virgin Birth story was first introduced into the history of the Messiah (and the evidence of the “Fathers of the Church,” who first mentioned them), we are justified in stating that the Virgin Birth doctrine was certainly unknown until the middle of the first half of the second century at the very earliest — and probably until considerably later than that. As we have already seen, Marcion, the founder (according to the Catholics of later days) of the Marcionite heresy, the upholder (according to himself) of the pure primitive faith, rejected the Virgin Birth story, or had never even heard of it.

According to the Clementine Homilies (and Clement is regarded as a “Father”), Peter is said to have affirmed that Yeshua never claimed to be God, and to have argued that “the begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten.” This apparently is an expression of the point of view of the Ebionites — one of the oldest sects (if not indeed actually the very oldest sect) of Christians — that Yeshua was neither miraculously born nor a god — and that this was another second-century “Christian” doctrine introduced by corrupt priests.

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, about the same time as or just after our Canonical Gospels were first published, himself admits that many Christians did not believe in the supernatural birth of Yeshua. Although he himself believes in the divine birth, and although he classes as heretics many sects of Christians whose orthodoxy as regards “eating meats sacrificed to idols,” insistence upon the observance of the law, and other kindred matters, is suspect, he does not so class those who believe in the normal and natural generation of Yeshua.
Indeed, he was quite ready to compromise with those who regarded Yeshua as a MAN and not a god, and with those who regarded him as a spiritual being never clothed in flesh, and ready too to adapt his argument to Pagan ideas. In his Apologia he writes —

   “But when we say that the Word (Logos), which is the first begetting of God, was begotten without intercourse — Jesus Christ, our Master — ….we bring forward no new thing beyond those known among you who are called sons of Zeus.”

He then refers to Hermes, the Logos of the Gnostics, and to Asclepius the healer, both sons of the most high god, and proceeds as follows:

   “But as to the Son of God called Jesus — even though he were only a man born in the common way, yet because of his wisdom is he worthy to be called Son of God; for all writers call God “Father of men and gods.” And if we say further that he was also in a special way, beyond his common birth, begotten of God as Word (Logos) of God, let us have this in common with you who call Hermes the Word (Logos) who brings tidings from God.”

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth was evidently still an open question among even that sect of Christians which was afterwards called “orthodox.” It certainly remained so up until at least the end of the second century, and even at the beginning of the fourth century it was, apparently, not considered seriously heretical to deny it.

Jewish Christians Reject Virgin Birth Heresy

It is hardly surprising that the Judahites, among whom the “primitive” form of Christianity arose, abjured the Catholic form of that religion, and either remained Gnostics or Ebionites until those faiths were suppressed as heresies, or reverted to Judaism. By the time when Christianity arose the better-educated Jews had arrived at a “higher” conception of the Supreme God than that portrayed in the anthropomorphic stories of the Old Testament — and the idea of a physical generation by that spiritual being appeared to them not only blasphemous, but absurd. To the pagans of Asia Minor, on the other hand, the idea of the virgin birth of a man-god was familiar, plausible, and even necessary; and it was among these Gentile Christians of the unphilosophic classes that the doctrine, which was afterwards incorporated in Christianity, first arose.

As we have seen, the earliest and by far the largest of the Jewish sects of Christians was the Ebionites, and the Ebionites rejected the Virgin Birth story and laid great stress upon the descent of Yeshua from David through his father Joseph. They regarded Yeshua as a MAN, and only divine in so far as he was imbued with the holy spirit — an emanation from YEHOVAH God.

The more closely we examine these two Gospels of Matthew and Luke the more surprising it appears, not that the Virgin Birth story was rejected by so many sects of early Christians, but that it was ever accepted by any of them! After the first two chapters in each of them, there is never a single word of reference to this proof of the divinity of Yeshua the Messiah — and there are many passages which CANNOT possibly be reconciled with the birth story.

The Additional Chapters

The contradictions involved in a story that frequently refers to Joseph as the father of Yeshua, and yet begins by the Virgin Birth episode, can be accounted for only by assuming that the original Gospels did not contain the earlier chapters of our present Gospels, and that when these chapters were added the editors omitted to make all the alterations in the text of the original chapters that would be necessary to bring these into accordance with the new commencement. Some small modifications seem indeed to have been made, but much remains which is absolutely inconsistent with the Virgin Birth story.

According to Mark (chapter 3), Yeshua is believed by “his friends” to be mad — “He is beside himself” (verse 21); and those friends, we learn from verse 31, included “his brethren and his mother.” If he were regarded as a prophet or religious reformer, there would be nothing surprising about this, the usual fate of reformers. But his mother, if he were miraculously born, could hardly have believed him to be mad. Matthew, having introduced the Virgin Birth story, tones down the “He is beside himself,” to “all the people were amazed” (12:23); and Luke, in our versions, altogether omits the incident.

Mark (6:4), “A prophet is not without honour but among his own kin,” is also altered by Matthew (13:57), who quotes the same words with the omission of “among his own kin,” and by Luke, who in our versions quotes only the first part of the saying. In these passages, therefore, the original Matthew and the original Luke may have been modified. In others the alterations are more certain still. In several old manuscript versions of Luke 2:5, we find the reading, “to be taxed with Mary his wife”; the word “espoused” being omitted.

The original form of the words given in our Authorized Version as “Joseph and his mother” (Luke 2:43) is “his parents.” In verse 48 the words, “thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing,” remain unaltered. These passages show that the chapter was written before the doctrine of the Virgin Birth had been added to the story. In the former case “his parents” is altered to “Joseph and his mother”; in the latter, Joseph is still referred to as the father of Yeshua. The editing was not efficiently done. Even the words “the parents” are retained in verse 27; and in verse 33 it is said that “Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.” Though the name “Joseph” has been substituted for “his father,” the episode — incompatible with the Virgin Birth story though it is — has been retained.

When Yeshua, metaphorically or literally, claims to have been about his Father's business, Joseph and Mary “understood not the saying” (verses 49, 50). According to both Matthew and Luke, Mary the Virgin knows that her son Yeshua is a supernaturally-born god. It is not pretended that, in her innocence, she regarded parthenogenesis as normal. And, apart from that natural knowledge that the birth was miraculous, there was the Annunciation — to Mary herself according to Luke, though to Joseph according to Matthew — and other events so remarkable that “Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”

Neither she nor Joseph could readily forget or minimize the miracle if it occurred as related; yet (according to both Matthew and Luke) Joseph and Mary regard Yeshua, after his birth, as an ordinary though very precocious child and treat him throughout his life as an ordinary man, and “marvel” whenever he in any way distinguishes himself above his fellows. The whole of the remainder of these Gospels is inconsistent, in this respect, with the stories of the Virgin Birth as related in their early chapters.

Matthew's and Luke's first chapters show how John the Baptist himself (and the respective mothers of John and of Yeshua) recognize from the beginning that the latter is the Messiah. Yet in Matthew 11:2, 3, and in the corresponding Luke 7:19-20, we read how John was still doubtful as to the divinity and Messiahship of Yeshua.

When Yeshua preaches “in his own country,” and his listeners say “Is not this the carpenter's son?” neither his relatives nor his disciples deny the fact.

According to John (7:5) his immediate relatives did not believe in him. Is it credible that their mother Mary (who, according to Matthew and to Luke, must have known that he was divinely born) would bring up her other children in ignorance of the divine nature of their brother? Is it credible that she herself should forget all about these wonderful events and join a party who attempted to “lay hold on him” because they think that “he is beside himself”? Is it not clear that the Virgin Birth story was subsequently added to a story which had had no such beginning — a story in which the divinity of Yeshua was not said to be suspected until after his death?

Even many of the orthodox critics acknowle
dge that the early chapters of the Gospel according to Luke must have been

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Even many of the orthodox critics acknowledge that the early chapters of the Gospel according to Luke must have been added long after the Gospel was first written. These, then, (if they still maintain the truth of the Virgin Birth story) must rely upon Matthew alone — one solitary record of such a miraculous event out of all the writings in our New Testaments, and one, moreover, just as open to suspicion of being a late addition as Luke's itself.

Is it surprising that some of them reject both stories, and privately confess that there is no adequate reason for believing that this stupendous miracle ever occurred? We should do likewise!

Jerome (c. 340-420 A.D.), who made the celebrated Vulgate translation of the Bible from the Hebrew into Latin — and intentionally clung to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth knowing FULL WELL that it was an egregious error — was intensely criticized by those who knew better. So insistent was the criticism that he was driven to write an entire book on the subject in which he makes a very notable confession of the inherent impossibility of the holy spirit paternity fable —

   For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not ALL have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the [Catholic] faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, NOT A VIRGIN, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH (The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, N & PNF. vi, 336).

So the Greek Father or priest who forged the false “Virgin Birth” interpolation into the manuscript of “Matthew,” possibly in ignorance, drags in the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 which the Catholic Father Jerome purposely perpetuated as a pious “lie to the glory of God”!

The dishonesty of the person responsible for adding the Virgin Birth fable to the book of Matthew, and the duplicity of the Catholic Church in retaining this falsity in their Bibles, has resulted in a bogus theology that permeates the so-called Christian churches to this very day. The Church, knowing full well the falsity of the doctrine, clings to the lie of the Virgin Birth and all its resultant consequences.

As American founding father Thomas Jefferson prophetically wrote:

   The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter!

Anti-Semitism Rears Its Ugly Head

How was it that the Ebionites, and similar groups, seemingly disappeared from view by the time the third century came on the scene? The main concerns that led to the exclusion of the Ebionites is noted by Alister McGrath —

   “The most important of these [concerns] was the perception that Ebionitism was a form of Jewish Christianity. The position of Jewish Christianity within an increasingly Gentile church became increasingly difficult with the passage of time, especially in relation to potentially contentious issues such as circumcision, food laws, and the observation of the Sabbath. Gentile Christians regarded themselves as liberated from these…” (Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 2009, p. 109).

In other words, as the pagans flocked to the Gentile church in Rome — bringing with them their pagan modes of worship — the laws of YEHOVAH God were done away with and replaced by the mythology of the mystery religions. “Although some accounts of the development of Christianity suggest that these issues were essentially resolved in favor of the Gentiles by the end of the first century,” writes McGrath, “there is evidence that they lingered on well into the second century. For example, Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, which dates from around the year 150, explicitly refers to such tensions” (ibid., pp. 109-110).

The main problem that Gentile Christians had with the Ebionites was that they interpreted Yeshua the Messiah within a Jewish context — thereby reinforcing the notion that Christianity was essentially a new form of Judaism. This did not sit at all well with the expanding universal church that had a deep hatred for anything Jewish. Explains Philip Jenkins —

   “As tensions grew between Jews and Christians, the [Gentile] church condemned any views that seemed too close to Judaism. This Jewish issue would often resurface in later theological debates, as thinkers who over-emphasized Christ's human nature were charged with Jewish sympathies” (Jesus Wars, HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 2010, p. 43).

“Christian-Jewish conflict,” continues Jenkins, “grew steadily during the fourth century, and by the 380s John Chrysostom denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in terms that would have a long and wrenching afterlife. John used the charge of deicide, holding the Jews guilty of the death of Christ, and thus of God himself, a theme later developed by Pope Leo. Of course, this concept was also intimately linked to the ongoing debate over the nature and person of Christ: to talk about killing God made a powerful statement about who or what had died at Calvary” (ibid., p. 120).

When Nestorius arrived on the scene (died circa 451 A.D.) the 6th-century historian Evagrius saw him as the agent of a diabolical conspiracy to subvert the [universal, Catholic] church. Evagrius wrote that Nestorius must be a Judaizer since he represented the Messiah as a MAN who was a great prophet like Moses — but one who fell short of true divine status. Therefore, in Evagrius' view, Nestorius was reviving the old “heresy” of the Ebionites — the Jewish-Christians.

Writes McGrath —

   “[Gentile] Christianity now saw itself as a new universal faith that acknowledged its origins within Judaism but also transcended its ethnic, cultural, and religious limitations….In the end, Ebionitism became heretical because it was a symbol of parochialism within a faith that was clear about its universal significance and calling. Although Ebionitism lingered, in various forms, it finally simply petered out” (Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. HarperCollins, New York. 2009, p. 110).

As the years rolled by so many groups were termed “heretical” by the growing Gentile church that the impression was created that the Gentile or universal church could have represented nothing but the orthodox Christianity of the apostolic age. All these so-called heresies OBSCURED the identity of original Christianity as represented by the Ebionites. Thus, as S. Gusten Olson observes, “the minds of many people were thus diverted from the values preserved in the collective testimony of ALL the Scriptures upon which the apostles [and the Ebionites] drew” (The Apostasy of the Lost Century, Nordica S F Ltd., Borough Green, Kent, U.K. 1986, p. 157).

In time the Ebionites and their successors found themselves in a difficult position — caught between a rock and a hard place. They were pressured, on the one hand, by the growing popularity of the Gentile, Catholic Church. And, on the other hand, they were being shunned by an evolving Judaism. They became increasingly isolated from both communities. The Ebionites did, however, have one thing in common with Judaism — they were both persecuted by the growing Catholic Church. The underlying reason for this is recognized by Barrie Wilson —

   “Proto-Orthodox [Gentile, Catholic] church leaders recognized that they could not hide their escalating Christological beliefs about Jesus from the rabbis. The latter were well aware of the growing claims being made about Jesus as the Christ, that he was being spoken of in terms that befit divinity, and that he was worthy of worship. Early Christianity [Gentil
e, Catholic] had created a SUBSTITUTE, COUNTERFEIT RELIGION, one VASTLY DIFFERENT from that of its founder…– from an original religion that was Torah-observant and that viewed Jesus as a teacher and Messiah claimant to one that REJECTED Torah observance and advanced strong claims about Christ as having a SPECIAL BIRTH and being a DIVINE HUMAN” (How Jesus Became Christian. St. Martin's Press, New York. 2008, p. 251).

In making this transition, the early Gentile church effectively killed off the historical Messiah. The Messiah of faith became the focal point — in whom belief alone was sufficient for salvation. Gone was the covenant between YEHOVAH God and the Israelitish people, and “Christians” were beginning to talk in terms of an “old” versus a “new” covenant — a distinction that clearly emerged in the writings of Irenaeus during the latter part of the 2nd. century. Adds Wilson:

   “The Jews were the only ones around, other than Torah-observant Christians [the Ebionites], who recognized what had happened. For a successful crime to take place, witnesses have to be eliminated. Guilt at having killed off the historical Jewish Jesus in favor of a GENTILE GOD-HUMAN — along with the recognition that the Jews [and true Christians] were the witnesses to this act — accounts for the DEEP ROOTS of Christian [Catholic] anti-Semitism, whether directed against the Jewish people or the religion of Judaism [or true Christianity]. The Jews [and true Christians] are the only people whose persistence on the world stage exposes the Christification process for what it was: A COVER UP. They and they alone recognize the transformation early Christianity underwent, how it switched the divine Gentile Christ for the HUMAN Jewish Jesus. They're the only ones who could 'blow the cover' of this HISTORICAL MANIPULATION” (ibid., p. 251).

According to this thesis lashing out at the witnesses provides an explanation for the sustained attacks on YEHOVAH's Ecclesia and Judaism throughout “Christian” history. In other words, there was “a crime” (the transformation of true Christianity by the burgeoning Catholic Church) and there were “witnesses” — YEHOVAH's true Ecclesia and the Jews. As a result there was a psychological need on the part of the Gentile, Catholic Church to ERADICATE AND SILENCE the witnesses so as to avoid detection.

“Christian anti-Semitism,” writes Barrie Wilson, “was not a one-time event by isolated Christian [?] leaders. It represents A SUSTAINED ASSAULT in ancient, medieval, Reformation, and modern times — from Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant forms of Christianity. The anti-Jewish [and anti- 'Jewish' Christianity] sentiment within Christianity is not just a matter of differentiation….The assault stems from a DEEPLY ROOTED inner feeling that manifests itself on an ongoing basis. The various contributing factors…are simply SYMPTOMS OF A PERVASIVE UNDERLYING GUILT” (ibid., p. 252).

The ROOT ISSUE is the Catholic (under the influence of Satan) supplanting of the Jewish Messiah — the HUMAN teacher and first-born son of YEHOVAH God — by a pagan, Gentile God-human, savior of humanity. And Satan has done a masterful job!
SOURCE

[Frank4YAHWEH]

The Virgin Birth and the Messiah

The apostle Paul does not mention the virgin birth anywhere in his writings. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known of the alleged special conditions of the Messiah’s birth that he would have mentioned them in one of his epistles. However, the opposite appears to be true! He considers Yeshua’s birth to have been natural and conventional — with no sign of a virgin birth! The bottom line is: The “virgin birth” story found in mainstream Christianity is derived from the many fables found in the religions of pagan peoples that shared the world of early Christianity!

This article delves into an issue of immeasurable importance. In our opinion it is a “show stopper” with regard to the issue of whether or not Yeshua (Jesus) is the BIBLICAL Messiah. It also represents one of the clearest examples of ignorance and/or deception that exists in traditional Christianity and counterfeit Messianism.

Mainstream Christians enjoy the thought of “baby Jesus” in the context of the “virgin birth”. It appeals to the “mother” in all of us. Christians want to believe the “virgin birth” account because it seems such a beautiful story! The desire to believe something is a powerful emotion to overcome, and this desire is a primary reason why many refuse to consider that the alleged birth accounts of the Messiah may be corrupted.

“Sugar and spice and everything nice” dances in the minds of most Christians during Christmas time (an undeniably pagan holiday). They enjoy thinking about the sweet and emotional scenario of the “virgin Mary” with the cute little baby “Jesus” in her arms — or asleep in the manger. Most Christians don't consider the fact they are actually promoting “baby God” in the arms of Mary — a thought that is repulsive to those of us that truly revere the Almighty, infinite Creator YEHOVAH God, or that have knowledge of the foundational Hebraic truths of Scripture. Anyone that doubts the extreme emotionalism inherent in the “virgin birth” story need only view the horrendous idolatry of “the blessed virgin” that exist within the Roman Catholic church, which has created an entire set of “Marian dogmas” surrounding the “virgin birth” story. Most mainstream Christians consider the virgin birth to be heartwarming, sweet and beautiful.

Error — particularly error that blasphemously lowers the Creator into being a helpless little baby (or even an adult human being) at the mercy of all around him and that defines a replacement, false Messiah — is NOT the least bit “sweet,” “beautiful,” or “heartwarming”.

There is an “all or nothing” mind set within traditional Christianity. It seems that traditional Christianity is a “binary” religion — a religion that is 1 or 0, “yes” or “no”, “grace” or “works”, “saved” or “damned”, etc. Most Christians will only accept “all” of the birth story and refuse to consider that, perhaps, it may not be totally accurate. Most of it may be true, but the “virgin” aspect is definitely false and is most certainly NOT supported by the Tanakh (Old Testament) — a fact we will prove in this article.

We realize most will angrily condemn us and reject this article, as well as most other facts we present, without even studying or looking at the evidence shown. So be it. The majority love not the truth and prefer to believe the lie (2 Thes. 2:10,11).

   10 He will enable him to deceive, in all kinds of wicked ways, those who are headed for destruction because they would not receive the love of the truth that could have saved them.

   11 This is why God is causing them to go astray, so that they will believe the Lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10,11 Jewish New Testament).

Most traditional Christians and Messianics flee those truths they wish not to accept and will usually not even devote time to study them. We are warned that such widespread devotion to the Beast religious system is exactly what will be found by Yeshua and the Father when they return to finally destroy the false teachers, Torah violators, and all others that struggle to perpetuate the age-old lies of the mystery Babylon religion.

We invite you to read on if you are sincerely searching for truth, because what we will prove is basic to whether or not you worship the TRUE Messiah that was promised through the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures — the Old Testament — or the false Messiah of the antichrist promoting great harlot.

What we will prove is that IF Yeshua was born of a “virgin” mother then he is NOT the Messiah of Scripture. Note that we said Messiah “of Scripture”. We will show that the “Christ” of traditional Christianity and counterfeit Messianism is actually derived from pagan mystery sun-god religions from which most traditional Christian teachings originate.

The following issues constitute our argument that the virgin birth is a fraudulent manipulation of New Testament writings:

1. The prophecy cited (Isaiah 7:14) to support the “virgin birth” is misinterpreted by mainstream Christian and Messianic apologists as they shred the context to “prove” their point. The context of Isaiah's prophecy prevents it from being divorced from the time frame in which it was given.

We will address the arguments regarding the proper translation of the word often rendered as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14.

We will also address the common use of the Septuagint Greek translation by those promoting the Babylonish mystery religion “virgin birth”.

2. The belief among mainstream Christians and counterfeit Messianics that the New Testament writings are “perfectly” accurate will be discussed. The incorrect belief that the New Testament is “infallible” is a primary reason why so many accept the virgin birth scenario.

3. We will discuss the absolute necessity for the Messiah to be a LITERAL descendant of King David through his human father and how this fact of Scripture is discarded by mainstream Christian/Messianic apologists as they promote a false Messiah (antichrist) — a REPLACEMENT Messiah that usurps and replaces the TRUE Hebraic Messiah of Scripture.

4. Finally, we will reveal a rarely discussed argument; an argument that is devastating to whatever is left of the virgin birth argument once the other issues have been covered. This may be the first exposure you've ever had to this argument since we've never seen it discussed elsewhere.

The simple fact is that the “virgin birth” is NEVER even mentioned in the New Testament writings except for the alleged birth accounts in a handful of passages in Matthew's and Luke's gospels. This undeniable fact provides strong evidence that the “virgin birth” never happened. As part of this point is the clear and irrefutable fact that acceptance of the virgin birth is NOWHERE stated as a necessary belief within the pages of the New Testament writings!

This begs the question — if the New Testament writings NEVER state it is necessary to accept the virgin birth, why do traditional Christians and Christianized Messianics teach one MUST accept it? Exactly what are they really promoting since they present demands regarding what one must believe that are nowhere found in the Biblical writings? The demand that one MUST accept that the Messiah is “God in the flesh” is also NOWHERE found in ANY examples of conversion recorded in the Apostolic writings (New Testament).

Just so no misunderstanding will occur, allow us to define what we mean when we say “virgin birth”. In this article “virgin birth” is defined as becoming pregnant — conceiving a child — without the normal sexual union between man and woman. It is the act of conceiving without losing one's virginity. We define a “virgin birth” as human conception without the normal fertilization of the female egg with the male sperm — male sperm which is deposited by and/or originates from a normal human male. In that light, our use of the term “virgin” is to denote the one to whom the virgin birth, as ju
st defined, applies. It is our firm conviction — a conviction fully supported from the TRUE Holy Scriptures — that Mary, the mother of Yeshua, did NOT conceive as a virgin, in the sense of not having relations with Joseph. We will specify when and where our use of the term “virgin” differs from the definition just mentioned.

As a side note: It is also the conviction of many leaders within Christianity that Mary was not a virgin. There are many other leaders that actually realize the virgin birth is not supported from Scripture and that also realize the New Testament accounts are likely fraudulent. However, they never express this “on the record”. Instead, they admit their true belief “off the record”. We consider it insincere and deceptive for them to continue to promote what they actually do not even believe. For them — and for many others — peer pressure, pride, and the fear of losing their profitable positions take precedence over serving YEHOVAH God with a whole and TRUE heart. By teaching what they do not even themselves believe, they prove themselves to be practicing willful deception and prove that TRUTH (and thus serving YEHOVAH God) is NOT their highest priority.

Let us also clarify that we DO consider Yeshua (falsely called by the name “Jesus”) to be the promised Messiah. Most traditional Christians and counterfeit Messianics are so confused about what the Scripture says about Messiah that they consider many doctrines, such as the “virgin birth”, crucial to proving “Jesus” is the “Christ”. Such beliefs illuminate how successful Satan has been in persuading many that their beliefs are Biblical, while they are actually very UNbiblical. Tragically, since the Scriptural study habits of Christians are so woefully poor, they are easily victimized by the Beastly system that deceives the entire world (Rev. 12:9).

So, if you assume that the objective of this article is to oppose the Messiah, you are mistaken. Our objective is to exalt the TRUE Messiah Yeshua and to hopefully begin to shake mainstream Christians and counterfeit Messianics from their stupor of spiritual drunkenness and victimization caused by the ignorance or intentional lies of their spiritual leaders — some of whom may actually be among Satan's servants “disguised as angels of light” (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Satan hopes to continue to present a “Christ” that knowledgeable Jews can NEVER accept, because he knows if they finally do accept Yeshua, he is doomed! A major obstacle to the acceptance of Yeshua as the Messiah by the Jews is the pagan doctrine of godly procreation promoted by the virgin birth teaching.

We will prove that IF Yeshua did not have an earthly father, he is NOT the Scriptural Messiah (anointed one) of the one and only Eternal YEHOVAH God. This is a fundamental fact of Scripture that followers of, and promoters of, the spirit of antichrist (replacement Messiah) hope you never discover.

The New Testament teaches we should always test what is taught us by referencing the Tanakh (Old Testament). In the book of Acts we read of a group of people the author describes as “more noble” than others.

   Now the people here were of nobler character than the ones in Thessalonika; they eagerly welcomed the message, checking the Tanakh every day to see if the things Sha’ul [Paul] was saying were true (Acts 17:11 Jewish New Testament).

Note the reason they were considered noble is because they were OPEN-MINDED and they searched the Scriptures DAILY to prove if what they were being taught was true. The “Scripture” they searched was the Old Testament. The New Testament did not even exist at that time! Despite this, most Christians NEVER test what they are taught, or interpret from their readings of the New Testament, by seeing if it can be verified in the Old. Instead, most Christians blasphemously conclude the Old Testament is largely irrelevant.

Traditional Christians and counterfeit Messianics (versus true monotheistic Messianics that refuse to honor the replacement mystery Babylon God-man Messiah) the world over do not follow the clear teaching of the New Testament — which DEMANDS all things must be verified from the Old! Christians and counterfeit Messianics violate the very New Testament they cling to and shun and/or despise those that can prove their unscriptural understanding that the New Testament is superior to — or even equal to — the Old Testament to be incorrect. The New Testament writings are not, never have been, and never will be, superior to or equal to the Old! The New Testament, itself, CLEARLY testifies to this fact.

There is no better example of the need to test what is taught from the New Testament by verifying it against the ultimate truths in the Old Testament than the issue of the virgin birth. Ultimately, as we will show, the issue becomes one of glaring contradiction between the Old Testament and the alleged birth accounts in the New Testament.

Sadly, virtually all traditional Christians and counterfeit Messianics do the exact opposite of what the noble Bereans did. Most reverse the test by elevating the New Testament as the ultimate authority, despite the fact the Apostolic writings (New Testament) teach against it. When the TRUE test — the same test those “more noble” utilize — is applied, the virgin birth is proven to be a fabrication by those seeking to proliferate the ancient and continuing mystery Babylon sun-god false religion that has always stood against the Hebraic truths.

Now to the study.

Contrary to what most mainstream Christians and counterfeit Messianics think, if it was somehow proven to them that Yeshua was actually not born of a virgin but was the literal son of Joseph, it would not negatively affect Yeshua's prophetic hold on his being the Messiah at all! However, because of their incorrect understanding of what the “Messiah” is, it probably would unnecessarily damage their faith.

ONLY if Joseph was clearly Yeshua's father would Yeshua meet the primary necessity of literally being of the seed of David — a CRUCIAL fact that the virgin birth destroys! So, if Joseph is proven to be his father, such news would positively impact Yeshua's prophetic hold to being the Messiah. Such news would also not negatively affect his being the SCRIPTURAL “Son of God”.

The Prophecy of Isaiah

A traditional Christian misunderstanding of Scripture is shown by the common belief that the virgin birth is an essential part of Yeshua's Messianic requirements. Prophetically speaking, as proof of his Messiahship, the claim that he was born of a “virgin” is indeed an issue, but in a way most Christians and Christianized Messianics fail to grasp! There is absolutely NOTHING in the Hebrew Scriptures that REQUIRES the Messiah to be born to a virgin. The passage many messianically apply to this claim (Isaiah 7:14) does NOT necessarily refer to a “virgin” woman, despite the deceitful claims by preachers and ministers. Furthermore, a fact those promoting the virgin birth hate to have attention focused upon, is that when the context of Isaiah 7:14 is considered, the verse is easily proven to NOT even be a Messianic passage!

Typically, the “virgin birth” debate focuses on the Hebrew word almah, which is found in Isaiah 7:14 and translated as “virgin” in some Bible translations. The New Revised Standard Version more accurately translates it as “young woman”, and the New American Standard Version has an alternate rendering note, which shows “maiden” as the translation. The primary tactic used by those promoting the mystery Babylon godly procreation teaching of the “virgin birth,” is to confuse the issue by rarely mentioning the clear context of the Scripture. It is for this reason they promote the intentionally deceptive idea that the entire debate hinges on the proper translation of the word they choose as “virgin”.

The translation issue is a distant second to the far more revealing issue of Scriptural context, but since virgin birth proponents know the context offers them ZERO
support, they endeavor to cunningly steer the debate clear of a consideration of the context by focusing on the less crucial and more confusing word game surrounding the “virgin” translation of almah.

In order for Isaiah 7:14 to be Messianic, it must be completely separated from ALL the surrounding passages. However, as with many other passages of Scripture, traditional Christians and counterfeit Messianics show no hesitation to shred the context as a means to “prove” their false teachings — especially their promotion of a “God in the flesh” Messiah!

Although the word-game regarding the translation of the word as “virgin” is a distant second in order of importance, we will nevertheless address the issue, since it is so often raised. The facts we will present should settle the issue for anyone that is truly sincere in their search for truth.

Those wishing to consider “virgin” as the proper rendering discard the clear Hebrew meaning of almah in order to claim proof for their argument. Actually, their “proof” is a zealous promotion of falsehood since they intentionally stretch the Hebrew word's true meaning to the breaking point in their search for straws of nonexistent support for the pagan doctrine of godly procreation.

The sure meaning of the Hebrew word, almah, (Strong's #5959) is a young woman of the age to be married. Whether it refers to a literal virgin or not has no affect on its being fulfilled in Yeshua except in a negative sense, since if Mary was a “virgin”, Yeshua is NOT the Messiah!

The New Strong's Guide to Bible Words shows that the word almah can mean “a lass” or “young woman”.

The Enhanced Strong's Lexicon presents the word as meaning a “virgin or young woman of marriageable age, a maid or newly married”.

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) shows the proper rendering of almah to be “a young woman, i.e., sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active”.

That the word almah does not imply virginity is conceded by E. W. Hengstenberg, author of the popular book The Christology of the Old Testament. In his commentary on Isaiah 7:14, he writes,

   “Here, as well as throughout this whole inquiry, the notion of a pure virgin, and that of an unmarried woman, are blended together. The former is not indeed required by the etymology of the word, but the latter certainly is” (page 169).

On the same page, he writes,

   “…we do not claim for the word the sense of unspotted purity, but only that of the unmarried state”.

There is a separate Hebrew word, betulah, (Strong's #1330) that is used far more often to represent a true virgin (sexually pure) female. It is used 50 or so times in the Tanakh (Old Testament), compared to 9 or so for almah. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance shows ONLY one clear translation for the Hebrew term, betulah. That translation is VIRGIN! Contrast this with the various alternate possible renderings for the word, almah, which traditional Christians and counterfeit Messianics demand must be translated as “virgin”.

So, betulah, NOT almah, is clearly THE Hebrew word for “virgin”. Isaiah was well aware of this and would have used betulah if he meant to imply a pure virgin was going to miraculously conceive! Constantinian Christian and Messianic theologians are also well aware of this but, as usual, twist the truth to fit their objectives.

Later we will address the weak argument made using the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The use of such weak arguments is common within traditional Christian and counterfeit Messianic groups.

It is true that in rare situations the Hebrew word almah may possibly be used to refer to a virgin; HOWEVER, even if it was indisputably the word for virgin it still proves nothing. As already mentioned, the word games played by desperate and deceitful Trinitarians and others seeking to promote the lie of pagan godly procreation is nothing more than chaff thrown up to confuse and deceive. THE issue is NOT the translation of the Hebrew Word, almah. THE issue is the context of the passages in which Isaiah 7:14 is firmly and irrefutably placed!

For proof, we will do what few Christian or Messianic leaders do, we will present the actual context of the verse and highlight crucial areas. This will prove that the use of Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic passage is a prime example of distortion and context shredding of Scripture. We will even use the King James Version, the favorite of those opposing us within traditional Christianity. Our proof is even more pronounced if other versions are used; however, to preclude the accusation of using a biased version, we will use the translation most adored by those believing Yeshua to be God. As you will see, even the KJV proves the traditional interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 wrong to all that are sincere and open minded to YEHOVAH God's Truth instead of in bondage to tradition.

   1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

   2 And it was told the house of David (king Ahaz), saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. (Ahaz and the people of Judah were terrified of the defeat they expected from the united efforts of Syria and the northern Kingdom, Israel)

   3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, (Isaiah sent to talk to Ahaz) thou, and Shearjashub (lit. “a remnant shall return”) thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

   4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, (Isaiah sent to calm the fears of the king of Judah) neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

   5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

   6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

   7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass (the defeat of Judah by Rezin of Syria and Pekah of the northern Kingdom of Israel).

   8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years (NOTE! a clear time frame was given from THAT time) shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

   9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

   10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

   11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; (Ahaz is asked to ask for a sign) ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

   12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

   13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; (Ahaz is of the house of David) Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

   14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (Ahaz) a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(The birth — or the name — was to be a sign to Ahaz. This couldn't possibly be the birth of Messiah, since it was hundreds of years later, long after Ahaz had died! A “sign” to a dead man is useless!)

   15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

   16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (those united against Judah)

   
17 The LORD shall bring upon thee (Ahaz), and upon thy people (Judah), and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. (Judah would be chastised severely through Assyria because of the wicked rule of Ahaz and other kings that forsook YEHOVAH God's torah; however, Assyria would not be the end for Judah.)

   18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.

   19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.

   20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.

   21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;

   22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.

   23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns.

   24 With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns.

   25 And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

   8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

   2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

   3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. (THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT OF 7:14!)

   4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. (repeat of 7:16, further proving the birth of Isaiah's son to be the fulfillment of Is. 7:14!)

   5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

   6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

   7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

   8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:1-8:8 (KJV))

(The use of this term (Immanuel) in 7:14 was part of the sign which was “God with us” during the time to soon come when Judah feels threatened from Assyria. Here the name is applied to Judah to insure that divine protection will be extended to it, which of course, it was at that time.)

There are several unambiguous facts seen in the context of these verses.

1. First, Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz of Judah and tells HIM (Ahaz) that the sign of a birth will be for HIM. This fact alone makes application of Isaiah 7:14 to the birth of Yeshua impossible, since Ahaz was long dead by the time Yeshua was born; thus proving it is not a Messianic prophesy.

2. The ENTIRE context of these verses refer to the specific issue of the prophecy regarding what will happen to those that were plotting to destroy Judah, of which Ahaz was King. Even the term Immanuel, “god with us”, was to assure Judah, as shown in 8:8, that YEHOVAH God would be “with them” during the time of trial that was to come when Syria and Israel strove against Judah and Assyria invaded.

3. Only a few verses after Isaiah 7:14, in verse 8:3, we probably see the birth he was speaking of in Is. 7:14. It was a birth of a son to Isaiah and his young wife. Furthermore, even the term “virgin” would apply to the prophetess if the information shown earlier regarding the use of almah to mean “a young woman” (i.e., “sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active”) is considered. We will comment more on this a little later.

4. Thus, the context is clear that the “virgin” (young woman) was probably Isaiah's wife, the “prophetess”, mentioned in Is. 8:3. This is crystal clear when bias is removed and the Scripture is actually allowed to speak for itself. Some Judaic commentators believe it applies to Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, who proved to be one of Judah's greatest Kings; however, we feel the context more correctly points to Isaiah's son as the fulfillment. Either way, the newborn child being prophesied was for THAT PARTICULAR TIME FRAME as a sign to Ahaz. The prophecy was NOT for a time frame 700 years after Ahaz was dead (Yeshua was born about 700 years after this prophecy)!

5. Additionally, Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4 are almost identical, proving them to reference the same event, which was that while the newborn son of Isaiah was yet young, the prophecy would be accomplished, which was that YEHOVAH God would eliminate the threat posed to Ahaz by the combined efforts of Ephraim and Damascus. This provides further evidence that the birth foretold as a sign TO AHAZ was fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's newborn son with the prophetess (Isaiah's wife) as the mother.

6. The common sense context is clear. The ONLY way Isaiah 7:14 can be a Messianic verse referring to Yeshua the Messiah is to completely rip it free of the clear context in which it resides. The ONLY evidence that this is a Messianic prophecy is the evidence supplied by Constantinian Christian tradition and probable scribal manipulation of the Gospels.

We challenge anyone to show us, FROM THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH, that this verse applies to the Messiah! And don't throw Matthew and Luke at us, writings for which evidence exists of scribal manipulation — an issue we will briefly address later. Prove it from Isaiah. Also, recall that even in the New Testament we find that truth MUST be proven from the OLD TESTAMENT, just as was done by the “noble” Bereans. Almost all Christians seem to forget or ignore this clear teaching from the pages of the New Testament.

A typical argument presented by Constantinian Christians/Messianics is that Isaiah 7:14 has a “dual” meaning. Those promoting this will agree that the context does NOT suggest some sort of future Messianic prophecy. However, instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself, they utilize the common “ejection button” of “mystery” or “hidden meaning.”

If a prophecy cannot be shown in the Old Testament, it is not a prophecy, and the use of Isaiah 7:14 as Messianic prophesy cannot be legitimately shown from its context; therefore, its “fulfillment” in the birth of Messiah cannot be substantiated. Unlike other verses that leave room for various opinions regarding their application to Messiah, Isaiah 7:14 is too clear to allow it to be so brutally divorced from its context. Unfortunately, since traditional Christians doggedly claim the New Testament to be equal or even superior to the Old, they allow the few verses in Matthew and Luke — or the notion of a “dual” meaning — to overrule the clarity shown from the context of Isaiah 7 and 8.

Regardless of the specifics of the prophecy, one thing is clear — it was DEFINITELY a prophecy for Ahaz and the days of Ahaz! There is absolutely NO HINT that this is referring to the Messiah. The common Christian interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 applies to Messiah (despite the contextual evidence proving otherwise) was possibly accomplis
hed when scribes took it upon themselves to edit the Gospel accounts of Yeshua's birth so that the alleged birth account would better line up with the standard Babylonian sun-god mystery religion god-man of pagan thought. The typical, almost universal argument we receive from those that disagree with us comes from the alleged Gospel accounts. Thus, the ONLY proof available for the virgin birth comes from writings scholars have proven are corrupt copies of original manuscripts that themselves are not “originals.”

New Testament Problems?

The fact that tens of thousands of undeniable differences exist between the available New Testament manuscripts is all one need point to for proof that the New Testament has scribal corruption. If I recall correctly, Bart Ehrman says in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, that there are over 100,000 variations among the 5366 extant manuscripts and no two manuscripts are in agreement. Even the most conservative estimate among scholars is that there are “over 10,000 variations” in the available texts. These facts ALONE prove, beyond doubt, that the New Testament is NOT the “perfect Word of God”.

Only the most obstinate and insincere individual would dare deny the clear fact of manuscript differences. Of course, the textual variants just mentioned apply only to the Greek manuscripts and ignore the added error introduced by incorrect translation from those manuscripts. If translator mistakes (or bias) are considered, the potential for error is dramatically multiplied since even a perfectly authentic Greek text, assuming one even exist, can be corrupted by biased translation into a different language — English for instance. Nevertheless, few Christians or counterfeit Messianics wish to accept the facts, which prove the New Testament to be imperfect. Most Constantinian Christians and Messianics absolutely refuse to accept this undeniable fact and in so doing PROVE themselves to be insincere!

Unfortunately, because of an unrealistic traditional insistence on the infallibility of the New Testament — despite mountains of scholarship that proves otherwise — insincerity rules supreme in traditional Christianity regarding Isaiah 7:14 and the probably fabricated “virgin birth” accounts in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke. In those accounts Isaiah 7:14 is stripped from the context in which it resides and wrongly applied, probably by biased scribes reaching for nonexistent “proof” of prophecy for a “virgin birth” that is more closely aligned with their mystery Babylon-based religions beliefs. So, one must be insincere and biased to apply Isaiah 7:14 to the Messiah when reading Isaiah free from the bias of Matthew's and Luke's birth accounts — particularly since Matthew's and Luke's accounts can NOT be proven to be free of scribal corruption.

Those that doggedly maintain “perfection” for the New Testament will utilize all manner of arguments from it to “prove” the virgin birth. Of course, ALL such arguments are necessarily limited to ONLY a few passages from Matthew and Luke — passages that would tell a completely different story if only a handful of words were different. Scribal corruption would not have had to be extensive to totally change the birth accounts of Messiah so as to align them with the virgin birth Roman doctrines of the Babylonian mystery religion sun-god worship that was common during the times the gospels were canonized. Virgin birth proponents are forced to rely upon the small fragments of verses they cling to from Matthew and Luke since the Tanakh (Old Testament) is void of any proof of the virgin birth. There are NO Messianic prophecies that even hint at a “virgin birth”! In fact, with the exception of Matthew's and Luke's alleged accounts, virgin birth promoters cannot even find proof anywhere else in the New Testament for their belief! It is nowhere else mentioned or even hinted at!

One “proof” argument uses the alleged fact that Joseph was going to put away (cancel plans to marry) Mary when he found out she was pregnant. Those using this argument will say this proves it was not his child and was therefore a “virgin birth”.

The common characteristic of ALL such arguments is the ASSUMPTION that what is recorded in a few specific verses is actually the truth and/or was in the original autographed copy of the text. Ultimately, those presenting such “proofs” simply refuse to consider that the gospel accounts of the birth of Messiah may have been corrupted by changing just a few crucial words. They utterly refuse to consider that their belief in the infallibility of the New Testament writings may be unwise. They elevate the New Testament above the Old Testament — despite the fact that the New Testament itself warns them to ALWAYS base truth on the Old! Later we will present one case of SURE corruption, that being the discrepancy between the recorded genealogies of Messiah shown in Matthew and Luke.

Many that disagree with us vehemently present another argument similar to the following:

   “The New Testament has been proven 99 percent accurate.”

Ninety-nine percent may be a bit of wishful thinking, but let's assume that we accept their statement. In fact, we do believe that the New Testament is highly reliable. The question is, do THEY actually accept their own accuracy estimate? Are they willing to stand by their statement? Since they so forcefully promote the idea that the New Testament is 99 percent accurate, then they must also accept what is implied by their statement, which is that the New Testament is 1 percent corrupt! Are they willing to admit that ONE OUT OF EVERY 100 WORDS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS INCORRECT, based on their own vigorously stated position of 99 percent New Testament accuracy? Obviously, if they admit 1% error they will have to admit it is quite possible a few of those 1 out of 100 incorrect words (or added words) may lie within the alleged birth accounts of the Messiah! There are 7957 verses in the New Testament. Are those promoting 99 percent accuracy willing to admit that by their own estimation roughly 80 New Testament passages present false information? Depending on where those 80 (as a minimum) are located, they may GREATLY affect one's understanding of “Scripture”.

In truth, even those that assume 99 percent accuracy for the New Testament still refuse to admit there may be 1 percent error. Even if they do, they ALWAYS subjectively select those passages they consider to be within the list of erroneous verses based upon their own personal bias. In other words, those that accuse us of discarding passages we choose not to accept do precisely the same thing when shown the numerous New Testament passages that conflict with their own beliefs! They are proven to be hypocritical regarding the accusations they hurl against those like ourselves!

The difference between Hope of Israel Ministries and those that hypocritically accuse us of selective New Testament acceptance is that we, unlike our accusers, use the same approach as the “noble” Bereans (Acts 17:11). We TEST the verses of the New Testament by comparing them to what is written in the Old Testament, just as the New Testament authors command. This test is virtually never used by Christians or counterfeit Messianics. Therefore, our use of discernment to determine what may be incorrect within the New Testament is not only Scriptural, but is also commanded from within the very pages of the New Testament. Since we follow the command to test the apostolic writings using the Old Testament, we are more of “New Testament believers” than our Constantinian Christian opponents! WE ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE NEW TESTAMENT MORE CLOSELY THAN OUR OPPONENTS DO!

Christians and counterfeit Messianics need to realize that their faith in the infallibility of the New Testament writings is actually faith in the infallibility of the men who collected, copied (edited), and canonized the New Testament manuscripts! When a Christian states a belief that the New
Testament is the “Word of God”, what they are actually naively accepting as perfect are imperfect men that history proves were VERY anti-Hebraic, anti-Semitic, steeped in the mystery sun-god religions — and politically motivated! Christians are not even aware of what their faith ACTUALLY involves or in whom their faith is ACTUALLY placed! They never stop to consider what they are ACTUALLY basing their “faith” upon! And of course, very few Christians have the slightest idea of what REALLY happened during those crucial first 4 centuries following the death of Yeshua. Worst still, most Christians don't care!

We am NOT saying the New Testament is bogus. Many falsely accuse us of that since they cannot refute our arguments using the Old Testament or scholarship! All we are saying is that even if the corruption exists in a small percentage of the overall number of passages it is unwise to ultimately base one's faith on a collection of writings PROVEN to be corrupt or questionable in various areas, which were collected by men that are also proven to be corrupt. We are also not implying widespread corruption. It doesn't take much cyanide or cobra venom to kill. One drop is all that is needed. Likewise, a scribal “edit” of just a few carefully placed words can totally poison truth, particularly when those words are contained in a handful of crucial verses. As stated previously, this problem is multiplied when otherwise correct texts within the Greek manuscripts are mistranslated! It is for this reason one should follow the New Testament authors' pleas to ALWAYS base one's faith ULTIMATELY on what is written in the Old Testament, and by verifying that their interpretation of New Testament passages has Old Testament support.

When the advice of the New Testament authors to verify the New Testament by using the Old is followed, the virgin birth is proven to be false (as are many other teachings within Christianity, particularly the “God in the flesh” Messiah and anti-Torah doctrines).

It is also unwise to assume English versions of the Bible to be the “Word of God”, which are based upon biased renderings from the available Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Bias does not necessarily imply intent to corrupt. It is simply a fact of human nature that bias will inevitably enter into a translation when the translator must choose between various legitimate renderings of a Hebrew or Greek word. Of course, virtually all Bibles used by Christians were translated by individuals that were biased against the Hebraic world view.

One book which discusses the issue of scribal manipulation of the New Testament writings is The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart D. Erhman, which we briefly mentioned earlier. There are LOTS of other books which prove that the New Testament is most certainly NOT infallible. We will not spend time proving what many scholarly publications already do. If others wish to believe the New Testament is the “perfect and infallible Word of God,” and refuse to verify their stated belief, so be it. There are many that prefer ignorance over truth because truth is too much for them to accept. Such is the case of those that wish to believe the New Testament writings are free from error.

The Septuagint

Now we will address the common argument regarding the Greek word found in the Septuagint, which is properly rendered as “virgin”; however, the Greek word, parthenos, is not limited to always meaning “virgin”. The Septuagint was for the most part a notoriously sloppy translation, and its version of Isaiah was generally more error-ridden than the rest. By the Middle Ages, the Jews had abandoned the Septuagint, and later Greek translations, by Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien and others, did not use the word parthenos. (The Septuagint, commonly known as the LXX, is still favored by Eastern Orthodox churches.) Briefly, there are a few points one must consider:

1. First, it is a fact that the Septuagint is a translation. The situation is no different than an English translation from the Hebrew that all in the English speaking world carry. Only the most grotesquely deceived will dare claim the English Bible is “perfect”. Most serious students of Scripture reference Hebrew Lexicons to verify and clarify their English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. So, like your English version of the Tanakh (Old Testament), the Septuagint is a translation from the original Hebrew, and like your English version, it is NOT perfect. The Septuagint is NOT an original version of Scripture! The original language of the Old Testament is Hebrew; therefore, common sense and honesty demands that the Hebrew be given precedence over the Greek — just as common sense and honesty demands the Hebrew be given precedence over an English translation. However, when this is done a primary argument of those promoting a “virgin birth” is severely weakened; thus, they selectively choose the Septuagint for their final argument.

2. The Septuagint was completed in the Hellenistic hotbed of Alexandria Egypt. Though traditionally said to have been translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II, most scholars believe that only the Pentateuch (Torah, or Genesis — Deuteronomy) was completed in the early part of the 3rd century BCE and that the remaining books were translated in the next two centuries. Of course, since the Prophetic writings were not part of the original and no one really knows who added them (Prophetic writings) to the Septuagint, it is not wise to consider them infallible. Obviously, Isaiah is part of this later addition to the Septuagint. I do feel the Septuagint is an excellent source for study and even quoting; however, when conflicts arise between the Greek of the Septuagint and the Hebrew of the more widely accepted Hebrew Scriptures, precedence should always be given to the Hebrew.

Because of the questions surrounding the origins of the Septuagint, it is NOT universally accepted. There were significant doctrinal and lifestyle differences between Hellenistic Jews and the more traditional Jews within the land of Israel. Hellenists were heavily influenced by Greek culture; thus, it makes sense that this same pagan influence may have contributed somewhat to some of the nuances of the Septuagint translation.

Christianity, as is often the case, promotes an assumption as fact by stating that Paul and other writers of the New Testament — as well as Yeshua — utilized the Septuagint as their primary Scripture. Such an assumption is not provable, is unlikely, and also has as a foundation the assumption that what we now have is EXACTLY what Paul and the other New Testament writers actually wrote. As a Pharisee, it is highly unlikely Paul would have used as his primary Scripture a translation composed by Hellenistic Jews — with whom the Pharisees differed greatly. It is likewise unlikely that Yeshua, or the other writers of the New Testament, used the Septuagint as the final Word.

3. Even if the proper translation of the Hebrew word is “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. The term is interpreted in the strictest possible sense by Constantinian Christians when, in fact, it should be interpreted based upon how the original writer intended — which of course we cannot possibly know. It could very well have been a young maiden, which is the rendering from the Hebrew.

4. Finally, regardless of whether or not it is rendered as virgin or maiden, it still is firmly lodged in the same context of Scripture; therefore, the context still demands the prophecy be applied as shown, which was as a sign to AHAZ. Ahaz was long dead (about 700 years) before Yeshua was born. As stated earlier, as sign to a dead man will not do much good.

Most will immediately think of the passages in the New Testament that refer to the child (
Yeshua) being conceived “of the Holy Ghost”; we will briefly address that issue. First, as already mentioned, there is legitimate debate regarding the authenticity of the accounts recorded in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke; so, the alleged fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in those Gospels may be an invention of the early Constantinian minded Greek and Roman scribes. The clear context of Isaiah 7:14, as just discussed, does not even hint at any sort of Messianic fulfillment. Also, the Word (Scriptures) is Spirit; therefore, being conceived of the holy spirit could just as well mean being conceived, as prophesied or planned, by YEHOVAH God through His Word. The plan of YEHOVAH always involved the birth of THE Messiah; therefore, being conceived (planned) by the holy spirit could just as easily mean being planned by the Creator and manifested at that time.

Next we wish to address a common argument put forth by those promoting the virgin birth as they attempt to wiggle free from the CLEAR contextual facts previously presented. This argument is among one of the clearest examples of panicked desperation that one can find within traditional Christian Biblical interpretations.

A Literal Descendant

You know that feeling you get when a friend makes a fool of themselves in public? You know that feeling of embarrassment for them? Well, the typical traditional Christian argument we’re about to discuss is like that. It is such an obvious act of desperation that it actually makes us feel embarrassed for the Christian and Messianic leaders that are forced to utilize it as they find themselves with no place to hide from the UNAMBIGUOUS PROOFS found within the context of Isaiah 7 and 8. The argument to which we refer is that used by those promoting the virgin birth of the verse Genesis 3:15, which refers to the “seed” of woman. They frantically attempt to promote the teaching that within this verse there is a mysterious code, which differentiates between the “seed” of man and the “seed” of woman, that lay dormant for 4000 years then reappeared to apply to Mary, the mother of Yeshua. Below we show four separate translations of the verse —

   15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15 (Tanakh))

   15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel. (Genesis 3:15 (NRSV))

   15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel. (Genesis 3:15 (NASB95))

   15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. (Genesis 3:15 (KJV))

Primarily, as a result of the KJV translation, traditional Christians stretch, twist, and bend the words “seed” and “woman” into being some sort of mysterious code-match of words to imply the Messiah is here shown to be of the “seed” of Mary instead of the “seed” of Joseph. Therefore, they attempt to force the argument that the CLEAR and OFTEN STATED crucial requirement that the Messiah be LITERALLY of the offspring of King David THROUGH HIS FATHER, which we will discuss shortly, is somehow overruled by this verse. This is one of the best examples of shameless context shredding and false doctrine that one can point to within traditional Christianity and is, indeed, an embarrassingly desperate teaching. In this case, the context being shredded is the entire Bible, which shows the Messiah to be the LITERAL offspring of King David! Let's examine these verses.

First, the word rendered as “seed” or “offspring” is the Hebrew word zera. The Enhanced Strong's Lexicon shows the word (Strong's #2233) occurs 229 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Note that it is shown to be a MASCULINE noun. The Authorized Version (KJV) translates it as seed 221 times, child twice, and also other times as carnally, fruitful, seedtime, and sowing time. Strong's also shows the meaning as:

   * seed * sowing * offspring * semen virile * descendants * posterity * children

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament presents the following information regarding the Hebrew word, zera. As you read this note how the primary meaning most definitely implies it is the MALE reproductive function that dominates the definition, NOT the female.

   zera: Sowing, seed, offspring. This noun is used 224 times. Its usages fall into four basic semantic categories:1. The time of sowing, seedtime; 2. the seed as that which is scattered or as the product of what is sown; 3. the seed as semen and 4. the Seed as the offspring in the promised line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or in other groups separate from this people of promise. (Harris, R. L. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (pages 252-253), Chicago: Moody Press.

Finally, within the definition found in the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) we find the following:

   (zera): n.masc.; = Str 2233; TWOT 582a – 1. LN 3.35 seed, i.e., a kernel part of a plant that propagates the species (Ge 1:11); 2. LN 8.70-8.77 semen, i.e., the product of the male genitals (Lev 15:16); 3. LN 9.41-9.45 child, i.e., one that is the direct offspring (Ge 15:3); 4. LN 10.14-10.48 offspring, descendant, posterity, i.e., one that is related more than one generation removed (Ge 3:15); 5. LN 11.90-11.95 family, clan, i.e., an extended family group based on a common ancestor (Ge 19:32, 34); 6. LN 11.12-11.54 race, i.e., a very extended family line based on many different criteria, with a focus on religious ties (Ezr 9:2) Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (HGK2446). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

We realize the information just presented may seem like overkill; however, the main point shown is that the term simply means offspring. Also, since the term is masculine, distorting it to refer to the “seed” (egg) of Mary instead of the “seed” (sperm) of Joseph is proven to be nothing more than hopeless, intentional falsehood by those unwilling to release their embrace of error. There are numerous clear references to specific applications of the term to male seminal emission. However, there are no references to it, that we found, where it refers specifically to the female egg; yet, this is precisely what panicky traditional Christian and counterfeit Messianic promoters of error implicitly and/or explicitly imply as the meaning in Genesis 3:15. However, the dominant meaning is simply offspring; thus, seed means offspring and is correctly translated as such in many versions of Scripture.

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 l
ie 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.

Note also that the ancestry of Yeshua shown in Matthew and Luke is dominated by men with only a few passing references to women. Some attempt to promote the totally false teaching that the Luke genealogy was for Mary, despite the fact the verses in Luke's gospel very clearly carry them through to Joseph. Frankly, the insistence that the Luke genealogy applies to Mary is one of the more obvious examples of outright deception by Christians and counterfeit Messianics as they attempt to “prove” their false godly procreation teaching, and should be noted as clear evidence of how far some will go in their attempts to promote blatant falsehood.

So, why do Constantinian Christians and counterfeit Messianics attempt to misrepresent the clear reading of the genealogy accounts of Matthew and Luke? Answer: Because of the obvious error presented in New Testament writings regarding the ancestry of Messiah Yeshua. The deceivers frantically attempt to side-step the VERY CLEAR fact that the differing genealogies shown in the Matthew and Luke gospel accounts PROVE the gospels to be corrupt!

There is no way around the fact that Matthew and Luke cannot both be correct in their presentation of different records of Yeshua's ancestry. However, instead of admitting the obvious truth that these verses prove the New Testament writings are NOT infallible, Christians and Messianics engage in hopeless verbal gymnastics in an attempt to cover up the fact that the differences provide strong evidence of scribal manipulation. They, of course, wish to cover up the genealogical discrepancy and hope their followers will not notice the glaring contradiction. Their primary strategy used to explain away the obvious error is shameless deception. They promote the devious and totally baseless concept that one account is for Joseph and the other for Mary — despite the fact both accounts list Joseph as the focus of the genealogical record. Sadly, the majority of Christians and Messianics swallow the lie hook, line, and sinker as they do numerous other obvious false teachings.

Some will argue that since Judaism teaches one's ethic heritage is derived from the mother, this proves the Messiah did not have to have an earthly father. So, despite the anti-Judaic stance of Christianity, Rabbinic traditions are sometimes used in a twisted attempt to support Yeshua's presumed deity. However, it should be noted how odd it is that Christianity adopts “Judaic” principles when those principles support them and condemns them as “works of the law” when they do not!

The Rabbinic tradition that one's Jewishness is transferred through the mother actually originated as a ruling of Judaic authorities in the early centuries. It was created in reaction to the large numbers of Jewish women that produced offspring resulting from rape by Romans and other non-Jews. Of course, abortion was not an issue as it is today; therefore, the mother would be shouldered with the responsibility of raising and training the child. Such a task would have been extremely difficult had she and/or the child been ostracized by the Jewish community. The Orthodox Jewish community can be EXTREMELY harsh towards those that dare break from tradition. The Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin) sympathetically recognized the tremendous burden of both mother and child and thus ruled that the child was fully Jewish despite the fact the father was not. It was intended to be an inclusive and well-meaning opinion of the Sages that allowed the children of such brutality to be counted as fully Jewish — with all rights and privileges — and thus accepted and supported by the community. The matriarchal (vs. patriarchal) Jewish pedigree is NOT based upon Scripture, though the Rabbis prospect for Scriptural support for it. Unfortunately, what was intended as an INCLUSIVE ruling has become EXCLUSIVE; thus, even to this day, one is “Jewish” only if his/her mother is Jewish despite the fact Scripture presents an opposite “ruling”. Bottom line: THE MATRIARCHAL PEDIGREE CONCEPT IS RABBINIC. IT IS NOT SCRIPTURAL and represents one of many Rabbinic rulings (“traditions of men”) that have become “Torah” for Judaism as Rabbinic law supercedes and/or appends YEHOVAH's laws.

The examples are numerous that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that one's ancestry is determined by who fathered them. The pedigree is determined by the father — NOT the mother. Therefore, with this in mind, the virgin birth becomes a SERIOUS issue because if Yeshua the Messiah did NOT have an earthly father, he is NOT the Messiah! Thus the Beastly religious system, represented by the great harlot of Rome, has shown her antichrist (usurper of Messiah, replacement Messiah) foundations again by removing from the Messianic resume of Yeshua THE primary demand for being the Messiah, which is that he be LITERALLY an offspring of King David through his father. And note this, if the virgin birth is true, Yeshua cannot possibly be the Messiah!

This is a MAJOR point! IF YESHUA DID NOT HAVE AN EARTHLY FATHER WITH DAVID AS AN ANCESTOR, YESHUA IS NOT THE MESSIAH! Why Christian and counterfeit Messianic leaders dismiss this important point is a cause for deep concern and wonder to us, because what they are actually dismissing is THE primary test used for determining if one is — or is not — the Messiah!

Another relevant issue of importance is the “timing” of Yeshua's birth, which relates to the clear 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 and the absolute necessity of the Messiah arriving at that precise time in history. Mark alludes to this “timing” in Mark 1:15:

   15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

In terms of Yeshua being the Messiah, Mary's virginity — indeed the entire birth episode — should not be an issue judged as redemptive. However, it DOES impact whether or not Yeshua is the Messiah. The ONLY crucial issue regarding his birth is whether or not he was a literal descendant of King David, which the genealogies from Matthew and Luke indicate as being the case IF — and ONLY if — Joseph was his father. The fact is, there is NOTHING in Scripture that REQUIRES a miraculous birth of Messiah — but there is a LOT of evidence that requires he be LITERALLY of the seed of David through his father.

As a final argument, ask yourself the following question:

   IF the Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament?

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 cannot accept something 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 often mentioned within the pages of the New Testament. The fact that it was NOT discussed in ANY of the examples in Acts, for example, where we read of the preaching and/or acceptance of the Gospel, proves to us that it did not happe
n. Of course, there is also no mention of it in any of the epistles.

Imagine if this happened today. Wouldn't such an event be on the fro

[terraricca]

Mike

Is their any way we can get rid of Frank advertisement first it is useless and so many time repeating the same things,over and over,and so lengthy that it purpose seems to create confusion more than bring understanding

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Imagine if this happened today. Wouldn't such an event be on the front page of every newspaper in the world — and the major topic of most news broadcasts? 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 dependant upon a “virgin birth”, he is still very clearly the Messiah.

The Influence of the Mystery Religions

The unusual importance Christian leaders place on Yeshua's birth may be due to the importance that was placed on the birth of Tammuz, Mithra, and other “god in the flesh” saviors in the pagan religions from which the Constantinian religion of Christianity derived many of its doctrines. These same pagan religions ALL had godly procreation as a major theme; thus, Constantinian Christianity and counterfeit Messianism, which is actually repackaged Constantinian Christianity, exalts the alleged godly procreation in the birth of Messiah — even though it is irrelevant to Messianic prophecy! The ONLY “demand” imposed upon Yeshua being a LITERAL “son” of YEHOVAH God is the demand created from the pagan origins of the majority of Christian theology — the same origins from which the doctrine of the Trinity arose!

The virgin birth was probably copied from other pagan religions.

It is a matter of historical fact that there were MANY pagan, mystery religions that flourished during the time the “church fathers” canonized their “New” Testament “scripture”. Mithraism was but one of those religions. Of course many of these were based in worship of a sun god. Guess where the church gets the idea for the halo or sun that surrounds the head of “Jesus” and/or Mary in many artists renderings?

The pagan foundation of MANY aspects of Christianity is obvious; however, most Christians prefer to ignore it. Truth is too difficult or embarrassing for most Christians and counterfeit Messianics to accept.

History records that:

* Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

* The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings

* In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

* A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

* In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.

* The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of “Jesus”.

* In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DECEMBER 25. An alternate myth is that he emerged from a rock.

* Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin. * In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki.

* Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

* been male.

* lived in pre-Christian times.

* had a god for a father.

* human virgin for a mother.

* had their birth announced by a heavenly display.

* had their birth announced by celestial music.

* been born around December 25th.

* had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant.

* met with a violent death.

* rose again from the dead.

Oddly, the concept of godly procreation is hinted at within Scripture; however, neither the “gods” nor the concept are presented in a positive light. We read in Genesis chapter 6 how the “sons of God” lusted for the “daughters of men” and cohabited with them. Though there is debate as to what the record truly signifies, many feel the relevant passages suggest angelic beings left their heavenly abode because of their lustful desires for earthly women. There are other apocryphal writings that support this — Enoch for instance. When one reads the passages in Genesis chapter 6 without allegorical interpretation, they seem to very directly refer to such mingling of angelic beings with humankind.

If one considers the fact that Adam and Eve were absolutely perfect in all physical respects, and that these earthly women were only a few generations from this perfection, it is conceivable that the appearances of the women of that time surpassed that of today's sexiest, most stunningly attractive women. They were probably unimaginably beautiful. Of course the men were probably also amazingly strong and handsome, and all lived astoundingly long lives. It is probable that the new body those that merit eternal life will be given after the resurrection will be of the same state of perfection that the Creator originally intended for his most exalted creation — mankind.

It was these “earth babes” that the angelic beings lusted for and with whom they possibly had sexual relations. Again, debate rages on this issue; however, the verses seem relatively straight forward. It is also from these unions that mighty men (superhuman offspring) were possibly born. These were, in a sense, sons of the “gods”. Our point is that the godly procreation of mythology is not as far-out and unscriptural as most may think. There may be some aspects of truth to the mythological stories of old, though the stories are distorted.

So, IF such was the case, then we can indeed point to a form of godly procreation. The “gods” were the heavenly beings, and the “virgins” were the stunningly attractive women of the earth. But, does Scripture record this as being a good thing? NO! In fact, it was largely as a result of these abominable unions that YEHOVAH God ultimately destroyed the earth with a great flood! Thus, what Scripture implies to be a grotesque abomination — cohabitation between heavenly and earthly beings — Christianity teaches as a major doctrine and exalts! Worse still, Christianity, following its pagan Babylonish origins, has the very Creator, Himself, partaking in this sexual union with woman!

It is notable that two of the only religions that do not have a virgin birth account is the true Monotheistic Messianic faith (not to be confused with counterfeit Messianism) and Judaism of which the true Monotheistic Messianic faith was a sect.

For centuries, since the dawn of time, Satan worked tirelessly to promote his false, Babylonish religion. He finally succeeded with his final work — the Beastly religious system or great harlot that seduces and spiritually fornicates with much of the world's population — Constantinian Christianity. It is with this grand achievement — the spiritual great harlot — that Satan may finally obtain the worship he has always desired. Using Constantinian Christianity, Satan has pulled many people away from worship of the TRUE God and the man chosen by YEHOVAH God — the Messiah Yeshua.

It dismays us when we consider the way Traditional Christians focus so much on the “virgin birth” of Yeshua, even to the point of making it a foundational and often redemptive teaching. Of course, this is done despite the fact there is hardly a mention of it in the entire New Testament and absolutely ZERO indication that it was considered a necessary belief! Christianity even “christianized” an unscriptural holiday to commemorate it (Christmas), which is undoubtedly a celebration of entirely pagan origins.

Scripturally speaking, the birth of Yeshua — at best — ranks a distant third among miraculous births! Adam was fashioned from dirt, and Eve from Adam's rib! Neither of them even had a mother! If a miraculous birth is a primary ingredi
ent in determining who is the “son of God”, the female, Eve, is more of a “son” than Yeshua! Indeed, if miraculous birth is a primary ingredient for determining one's “deity”, then Adam and Eve have a stronger claim to being “God” than does Yeshua!

Our eternal life is not determined by Yeshua's birth. It is determined by his selfless death as payment for the lawful penalty of eternal death we deserve because of our sins. It is his death and subsequent resurrection by His God and ours that gives us hope for a future resurrection to eternal life in the Kingdom to come.
SOURCE

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (terraricca @ July 18 2012,08:58)

Mike Is their any way we can get rid of Frank advertisement first it is useless and so many time repeating the same things,over and over,and so lengthy that it purpose seems to create confusion more than bring understanding

Origins of the Virgin Birth Myth

The Greeks of the first few centuries of the Common Era had to pick and choose among the dozens of mystery cults and gods that had sprung up — each promising riches and eternal bliss in a heavenly afterlife. The Messiah had little to offer these Greeks. He was a mortal Judahite messiah, speaking mainly to the sons of Abraham, so the Messiah's later-added attribute of a virgin birth was necessary if the Messiah was to be made acceptable to the pagans of the Hellenized world. The interpolators of Matthew and Luke proceeded to elevate the Messiah to the status of the Greek savior-gods by inserting, at the front of these gospels, the birth narrative of the Messiah.

James Still

Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous virgin-birth of the Messiah. Also, many liberal Christian denominations have either quietly purged this curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and the Messiah's virgin birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people. The purpose of this article is to explore the mythological connections between prodigal children in history with an emphasis on the meaning and symbology of virgin birth as it particularly relates to the Messiah. In this way the Messiah's virgin birth and the mysteries surrounding it will be fully explored in the mythological context from which it derives.

We know very little about the desert nomads and goddess worshippers who settled the fertile Tigris-Euphrates river valley. Mesopotamia, situated as it was between the ancient lands of Ur and Sumer, was almost constantly at war in the three millennia preceding the Common Era. What we do know comes down to us through the Ashurbanipal library. King Ashurbanipal (fl. 668 BCE) of Nineveh ruled the Assyrian empire just prior to its decline. His brutal accomplishments on the battlefield were tempered only by a driving passion for letters and learning so that, over time his spoils included the religious texts and history books of all of his conquered neighbors including the Mesopotamians. After his death, his empire collapsed and in a few short years Nineveh itself was utterly destroyed by Persian invaders. The invaders were only interested in destroying Nineveh's military might; they ruined the city's walls, but completely ignored the Ashurbanipal's library, perhaps considering it a mere whimsical endeavor. The library was soon swallowed up by the shifting sands of the desert. Finally in 1845 British archaeologists rediscovered Nineveh and the wealth of books which lay buried there.

The pre-civilized world of ancient Mesopotamia, consisted of small farming settlements whose people worshipped Ishtar, a fertile, mother goddess. Ishtar caused the rains to fall and the crops to grow in a continuous cycle of birth, life, and death. Over time, Ishtar-worship began to wane as the warlike male gods of neighboring tribes emerged in positions of prominence. The warrior-kings of neighboring desert tribes continually invaded the fertile lands of Mesopotamia, eventually seizing the land and incorporating it into their own rising and falling empires. One of the first warrior-kings to rise up among these early peoples was Sargon of Akkad, who established his kingdom in 1632 BCE. Ishtar was by now fully absorbed into the stronger cults of the patriarchal deities and she became a lesser deity who was subservient to the new male gods of the warrior-kings.

Sargon is perhaps the first Babylonian king who was said to have a larger-than-life birth and childhood. He was born in secret to a mother of lowly birth and a father who was a mountain god. In a motif which would later be borrowed and attributed to Horus and Moses, Sargon's mother placed the child in a basket of rushes and sent him down a river to protect him from the god's enemies. The babe was rescued downstream by simple folk and the goddess Ishtar loved and guided Sargon through his early childhood and to his final destiny: the ascension of the throne. Sargon's biography started a “tall tale” tradition that subsequent kings felt the need to match. The attribute of divine birth and predestination became an important vehicle whereby a mortal king was said to be god-favored; gaining recognition and power during his life which often continued into posterity long after death.

By 1000 BCE, we find this tradition improved upon so that the biography of kings and important men insist that they were not only divinely born, but said to have transcended death to become gods themselves. Zoroaster, the Persian prophet and patriarch who lived and preached in ancient Babylon, was said to have been God-begotten and virgin born. Virgin-birth was the responsibility of the Ishtar priestesses, who conducted fertility rites, prophesied and performed elaborate rituals in the temples throughout Babylon. The priestesses who administered the temples also managed a lucrative prostitution business that provided a steady stream of financial support for temple activities. Upon their return to Palestine, Hebrews of the Babylonian captivity brought back to the Mediterranean peoples wondrous tales of the priestesses and their blasphemous sexual ministries to the men who visited them. The role of the Ishtar priestess was to act as both mother to the prospective man's child and minister to the child's divine needs:

   “Holy Virgin” was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply “unmarried.” The function of such “holy virgins” was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God.” [1]

The Hebrews called the children of these priestesses bathur, which meant literally “virgin-born” as in those children who were born of the holy harlot-priestesses of the temple. The Hellenic world had no equivalent to the bizarre rituals of Ishtar, and mistranslated and misunderstood the literal Hebrew's bathur as parthenioi, also “virgin-born” but in the sense of physical, not spiritual, virginity.

The Zoroastrian cosmology told of the world lasting for twelve thousand years in four, three-thousand year blocks of time. The last block of time began with the divine birth of the prophet and would end by ushering in the apocalyptic end of the world and the restoration of good over evil:

   [Zoraster's] birth and teaching in the world marked the opening of the final three thousand of the world span of twelve thousand years — at the end of which term his spiritual sons Saoshyant, “the Coming Savior,” the World Messiah, would appear, to culminate the victory of Truth over the Lie and establish forever the restoration of the pristine creation of God. As the legend tells, the birthplace of Zoroaster…was beside the river Daiti, in the central land of the seven lands of the earth, Eran Vej….Angra Mainyu [Demon of the Lie] rushed from the regions of the north, crying to his horde, “Annihilate him!” But the holy babe chanted aloud…and the demons were dispersed.[2]

In the Hellenic empire carved out by Alexander the Great during the third century BCE, these eastern beliefs and myths mingled with those of the Greeks, Egyptians, and Semitic peoples. Alexander was anxious to connec
t the Mediterranean world with the strange ways and customs of the Orient and sought to connect his two empires culturally as well as politically. The Greeks had already devised well-developed concepts of divine impregnation. The savior-god Dionysus was said to have been born after Zeus visited Persephone in the form of a serpent. The Persian contribution to these Hellenic myths was to bring the fascinating idea of the virgin (parthenioi) birth to the old Dionysus and Herakles stories. Eventually the pagan mysteries had fully incorporated the virgin-birth ceremonies of the Ishtar priestesses into their own beliefs and religions as each savior-god took on the divine attribute themselves.

The Greeks related that Persephone was hidden in a cave by her mother, the goddess Demeter. While there, Persephone began weaving a great tapestry of the universe out of a web of wool. Zeus learned of her presence and approached Persephone in the guise of a serpent. She conceived a son for Zeus and named him Dionysus, whom she cared for and nurtured in the cave to protect the young child from other jealous wives of Zeus. Eventually Herakles, whom the Romans would rename to Hercules, was said to have been born of a god as well. In due time Perseus, Minos, Asclepius, Miletus, and many others, were all reputably born of a specially selected mortal woman and a god in the manner of the Ishtar virgin priestesses. Often the god would impregnate the woman as a spirit in special ceremonies. Zeus was said to have impregnated Danae by visiting her as a ray of sunlight and the dove, sacred to Ishtar, manifests itself as a holy spirit to impregnate Mary and announce Yeshua the Messiah as the son of YEHOVAH God. [3]

One result of the Persian-Hellenic blend of myths was Mithras. Mithras was a Persian deity, but other than his name used “to give itself an exotic oriental flavor,” [4] Hellenic Mithraism was distinctly pagan. Mithraism began and flourished at the same time as did Christianity. The cult gained enormous popularity and by the third century hundreds of mithraeum — underground temples where Mithras was worshipped — were spread out across Asia Minor, Africa, Italy, Greece, and the German and Scottish frontiers where Roman soldiers were stationed. Mithras is the most recognizable of the Mediterranean gods that was said to have been physically virgin-born; a flattering imitation of the Ishtar priestesses of Babylon. Mithras was depicted as a” bull-slayer” and stone-carved reliefs display a tauroctony where Mithras plunges a knife into the neck of a great bull, while the blood spills down to the ground. The bull-slaying scene always takes place inside of a cave, symbolically represented by the mithraeum's locations in caves and underground grottos. To understand this symbolic bull-slaying, we must first look briefly at the Greco-Roman world's understanding of the universe.

The ancients believed that the sun, the moon, “wandering” stars (planets), comets, and other celestial bodies were heavenly gods who were in motion about a stationary earth. Since the sun (Sol invictus) seemed to be the most influential of the celestial gods, it was especially worshipped and regarded as annually “reborn” at its lowest point in the sky during the winter solstice of December 25th. [5] Since the plane of the ecliptic — the path that the sun travels in the sky — traces out the band of the twelve star-patterns that make up the zodiac, the sun was considered a god that gave “birth” to, or was a father of, the twelve zodiacal gods. The Greek astronomer Hipparchus made the astounding discovery in 128 BCE that the zodiac of constellations slowly drifted backward over time so that they appeared, with respect to the suns position at winter solstice, in a new location in the heavens. Every 25 thousand years these constellations slowly moved; a phenomenon we know today to be the precession of the equinoxes which is caused by the “wobble” of the earth on its axis. To the ancients, it was a frightening and astounding event:

   Hipparchus, who assumed that the earth was immovable and at the center of the cosmos, could only understand the precession as a movement of the entire cosmic sphere. In other words, Hipparchus's discovery amounted to the revelation that the entire universe was moving in a way that no one had ever been aware of before….[The precession] had profound religious implications. A new force had been detected capable of shifting the cosmic sphere: Was it not likely that this new force was a sign of the activity of a new god, a god so powerful that he was capable of moving the entire universe? [6]

At the time Hipparchus made his discovery, the spring equinox, which signaled the resurrection of the sun-god, appeared in the constellation of Aries the Ram. Before Aries, it was seen that the equinox fell on Taurus the Bull. This celestial movement taking place among the heavenly gods and the “death” of Taurus the Bull made a tremendous impact. Mithras became that celestial force who was strong enough to slay the bull and was able to command the very heavens to do his bidding.

In Mithraism, just as in Christianity and Zoroastrianism before them, the world was a constant battleground of good and evil; a bitter dualistic struggle between the hosts of demons and the elect who serve God. Spirituality warred against the physical, and darkness imperiled the good fortune of light. Mithras represented the divine son of the sun-god and the savior of good against darkness in the universe who battled against the minions of evil to save mankind.

Because Mithras could move the celestial sphere at will, he was seen as outside of the universe. Carvings of Mithras reflect his birth as a naked child bursting from an egg-shaped petra genetrix, or “Generative Rock.” The rock caves where the mithraeum were located symbolize the “womb” from which Mithras emerged. His escape from the confines of the rock, attest to his extra-universal power to escape the celestial sphere and command the heavens:

   [Mithras'] birth is said to have been brought about solo aestu libidinis, “by the sole heat of libido….” The earth has given birth — a virgin birth — to the archetypal Man. [7]

Mithras was born on December 25th, the eve of the winter solstice when the sun is at its lowest point in the sky. With the dawn of light on Mithras' birth “the priest emerged from the temple to announce triumphantly: The God is born!” [8]

When Christianity gained power in the fifth century, Mithraism was declared heretical and ruthlessly scourged. Before that time, Christianity and Mithraism coexisted and were undoubtedly influential upon each other. This mingling and influence are apparent in the manner with which Christianity overtook Mithraism. The former had no trouble incorporating Mithraism's followers into its own ranks and many former mithraeums were converted to churches. Many Roman churches today, the Church of San Clemente in Rome most notably, still contain well-preserved mithraeums in their vaulted burial crypts. The lines that divided Mithraism from Christianity were understandably blurred due to this slow and steady absorption of Mithraism by Christianity during the centuries that the two existed side-by-side. This process led to the similarities that we now see shared between the two religions:

   [Mithras] was said to have been sent by a father-god to vanquish darkness and evil in the world. Born of a virgin (a birth witnessed only by shepherds), Mithras was described variously as the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Word, the Son of God, and the Good Shepherd and was often depicted carrying a lamb upon his shoulders. Followers of Mithras celebrated December 25th (the winter solstice) by ringing bells, singing hymns, lighting candles, giving gifts, and administering a sacrament of bread and water. Between December 25th and the spring equinox (Easter, from the Latin for earth goddess) came the 40 days' search for Osiris, a god of justice and love. The cult also observed Black Friday, commemorating M
ithras' sacrificial bull-slaying which fructified the earth. Worn out by the battle, Mithras is symbolically represented as a corpse and is placed in a sacred rock tomb from which he is removed after three days in a festival of rejoicing. [9]

The Messiah's virgin-birth was probably attributed to him during this time. Matthew and Luke write that the Messiah was born of a virgin in 1:18-25, and 1:26-35, respectively. Mark, the earliest of the synoptics, makes no such claim and the Gospel of John would never think of making the Messiah more than flesh and blood. The Gospel of Mark aligns itself closely with the earlier Q — the forty or so oral tradition sayings that are believed to be derived from the Messiah's teachings directly — and does not think to concern itself with the biography of the Messiah prior to his baptism by John. To early Christians, the childhood or place and manner of the birth of the Messiah was irrelevant. The Kingdom of YEHOVAH God was at hand and the Messiah the messenger had warned them of that fact and that they should prepare for the new heaven and earth that was to come in their lifetimes. Given the Messiah's apocalyptic message and instructions to repent and prepare for the LORD, a posterity-driven biography would seem absurd. If the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God was at hand, as the Messiah taught, then there would be no future generations to read anything that was codified in the present. Thus, the oral tradition preserved the Messiah's teachings in short, concise pericopes (short sayings) and Yeshua's followers gave little thought to writing them down at first because of the very nature of the apocalyptic movement that had sprung up around them.

As time went by it could be seen that the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God was delayed. Among the Hellenized Jews and the Greek pagans who were considering conversion to Christianity, this delay posed more questions than answers. Additionally, Greek pagans, from which Christianity was to draw its converts and eventually thrive, were naturally skeptical of any new savior and the heavenly rewards they might promise. These Greeks had to pick and choose among the dozens of mystery cults and gods that had sprung up, each promising riches and eternal bliss in a heavenly afterlife. The Messiah had little to offer these Greeks. He was, by all accounts, a mortal Jewish messiah, speaking only to the sons of Abraham and telling them to prepare the way of the LORD who would build a new Jerusalem especially for his chosen people. The Marcan Messiah that was known to his followers during the middle-to-late first-century (before the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John) shared none of the attributes of the time-honored moral-savior deities of Dionysus or Herakles. The Messiah's later-added attribute of a virgin-birth was necessary if the Messiah was to be made acceptable to the pagans of the Hellenized world.

Hebrew teachings do not specify that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; the very idea is ALIEN to Jewish expectations of who the Messiah would be. Quite contrary to the Hellenized Jesus “there is nothing in the Jewish sacred books to suggest that the Messiah or anyone else was, or was to be, born of a virgin.” [10] The Messiah had been thoroughly rejected by the Judahites who had decided that he was not the Messiah that would usher in the new Kingdom. Early Christians had no choice but to turn away from Palestine and introduce the Messiah to the House of Israel and the Gentile world.

The Gospel of Mark begins with the Baptist in the River Jordan and the baptism of the Messiah there. Early versions of Matthew and Luke, which were circulated among Greek Christians, began with the Baptist as well. At some point, these Christians felt the need to tailor their savior after the Greek savior-gods that they were familiar with and felt that it would be necessary to write a biography of the Messiah to fill that need and make him as powerful and honorable as the pagan gods. The Gospel of Mark (70 CE or earlier) was already too well known and circulated, but the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were perfect for inserting the childhood biography of Jesus:

   The first two chapters of Matthew and the first three chapters of Luke were added in the second century by Hellenizers who would accept only a divinely born savior-god like those of the pagan mystery-cults….” [11]

By the close of the first century it became necessary to codify the origins of the Messiah so as to defend him from the pagan critics who hesitated at following a new god when their current ones, like Herakles and Perseus, were well known to have been born by the union of a god and a virgin mother. Writing independently of each other, the authors or interpolators of Matthew and Luke proceeded to elevate the Messiah to the status of the Greek savior-gods by inserting at the front of their gospels, the birth narrative of the Messiah. The end result however created another problem:

   Although Matthew and Luke, who deal with the Virgin Birth story, are considered “inspired” writers…they yet disagree on minor details. It was to Joseph that the angel appeared to according to Matthew; it was to Mary according to Luke. And the Annunciation (the angel Gabriel's announcement of the Incarnation) took place before Mary's conception, if Luke is the authority; and after, if Matthew is the authority. [12]

At the time of Matthew and Luke's interpolation, “Christianity” had deeply rooted itself in the Graeco-Roman world and had completely separated itself from its mother religion Judaism. Former pagans were converting en masse and brought their religious beliefs with them to the new religion.

Even the Hebrew's Tanakh was forgotten, having been replaced by the Greek Septuagint which translated the Old Testament books into Greek terms and concepts that often were misleading, inaccurate, or mistranslated from the Hebrew texts. The Greek-speaking author of Matthew, relying on the faulty translation of the Septuagint, rendered the Hebrew word almah (young woman) into Greek parthenos (virgin) when he wrote:

   Behold, a parthenos shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [13]

The Septuagint had retained the Ishtar-worshipping virgin-temple practices in part by insisting on the physical virgin-birth of Isaiah's prophetic Emmanuel in verses 7:14. The later writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the Septuagint for their references. After reading this passage in Isaiah, Matthew sought to find a way to fit the Messiah into the virgin-birth role that Isaiah spoke of, thus achieving a prophecy in Yeshua's own birth. The impetus for the idea and the motivation which would eventually permanently seal it into the canon, came from the huge numbers of pagan converts. These converts didn't want to leave behind Mithras and Perseus, who were both virgin-born, in exchange for a Jewish Messiah who was not.

The text in Isaiah 7:14, properly translated from the Hebrew Nevi'im reads:

   Assuredly, my LORD will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

This “young woman” may perhaps be unmarried or a physical virgin, but she should not be confused with the role of the Holy Virgins of the pagan temples of Ishtar whose job it was to bear savior-gods. This passage could not refer to anything other than a direct sign of YEHOVAH concerning the events of Isaiah's time. Isaiah specifically refers to the time and place in which the prophet is speaking to King Ahaz and reassuring him that Syria and Ephraim will not go to war with Judah. [14] Isaiah “is simply saying to Ahaz that a lady who is now a virgin will shortly fall pregnant and bear a son, and that by the time this has happened the political dangers will have been averted.” [15] Matthew, straining to provide some kind of scriptural basis for the virgin-birth of the Messiah, takes Isai
ah out of context in order to support a prophecy fulfillment through the Messiah's virgin birth. We see the context-dropping in 8:3-4 where Isaiah's prophecy is said to have come true in that “the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria” shall be plundered by Assyria while the child is yet an infant. These invasions and the resultant booty did occur in the seventh century BCE. How did such a doctrine ever become promulgated?

What actually happened is obvious enough: at an early date, Judaizers interpolated passages designed to make Yeshua the Messiah who would establish a Jewish empire at His Parousia; but then, about 115-125 (CE), since it had become impossible to remove these interpolations, certain Hellenizers simply superimposed Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1 upon them, which provided the Messiah with a Virgin Birth and made of him a savior generically similar to Dionysus and therefore acceptable in the pagan world. [16]

By the time pagan philosophers like Celsus (fl. 180 CE) were denouncing the virgin-birth mythology, it was too late. The doctrine was already imbedded in the collective minds and manuscripts of the early Christians. Celsus anticipated the motive behind the virgin birth narrative and accused Christians of attributing the virgin birth to the Messiah in order to imitate the pagan savior-gods:

   Many of the nations of the world hold doctrines similar to those espoused by the Christians….The Galactophagi of Homer, the Druids of Gaul, and even the Getae (for example) believe doctrines very close to (the historicity of Christianity and Judaism)…Linus, Musaeus, Orpheus, Pherecydes, Zoroaster the Persian, and Pythagoras understood these doctrines….What absurdity! Clearly the Christians have used the myths of the Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth.  [17]

Celsus' bitter criticism necessitated a Christian apology that never quite overcame the defensive posture that it was forced to take. Early Church fathers like Eusebius and Augustine compare and contrast the Messiah heavily against his pagan contemporaries, claiming that if the Messiah is false, then so is Mithras and Herakles. During this period, the early Christians were still tied to their pagan roots and had not yet stated a clear case for why their god should not be considered an equal of Mithras, Dionysus, and other Greek and Roman gods. Roman critics and neoplatonic philosophers who argued against Christianity from a conservative status quo position, couldn't understand why Christians would want to so closely fashion their god after those of the standard repertoire of state-endorsed gods.

The pagan idea of a savior-god being virgin-born was very persistent:

   a…factor making for the survival of such tales (virgin birth) in religious cults is stressed by Gilbert Murray. He notes that it is the saviour gods of paganism who are often reputed virgin-born. The father-god supplies the human race with a saviour, his son, by impregnating a goddess or a mortal. He must, however, not be regarded as actuated by lust. His purpose is the birth of a great saviour of mankind, and so the impregnation has to be effected without carnal intercourse. Hence Io was made pregnant by the laying on of the divine hand, Danae by the golden sunlight. [18]

Nowhere is virgin birth so stressed as in the Graeco-Roman world where the synoptic interpolators were deeply rooted:

   [T]he doctrine of the Virgin Birth, without which no prophet or savior-god could be a divine incarnation, was so common among ancient cults that it was impossible for any religious founder to achieve acceptance without it. [19]

The virgin-birth story which is attributed to Yeshua the Messiah, is a later pagan addition interpolated for the sole purpose of adding support for the Christian savior. Not having been based upon a solid textual foundation like the Jews, early Christians needed to attribute the characteristics and events of existing gods to their savior in order to legitimize him as a god worthy of worship. The Messiah represents a crossover from Messianic Judaism and Graeco-Roman paganism; an embodiment of the best of both worlds.

Clues from the apocryphal — texts not included in the canon — that account for the persistence of the Messiah's virgin-birth may be from the Gospel of Thomas, which dates to perhaps 50 CE. The Messiah is preaching in the desert using parables and saying that “he who has ears, let him hear.” A woman calls out saying “lessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you” to which the Messiah replies:

   Blessed are those who have heard the word of the father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, `Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'[20]

The Messiah is referring to the hard times that may befall those who choose to serve YEHOVAH God for the path to the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God is narrow indeed. Often the Messiah is depicted in the gospels as being taken literally (e.g., Nicodemus' “born from above” narrative) when he meant to use figurative speech, so this may be just such a case. Also, in the same gospel the Messiah tells his disciples that when they “go into any land” and “see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him.” [21] Thomas' Messiah constantly plays on words and tells his disciples that only by searching for the beginning will they find the end of their journey. Aside from the Buddhist overtones of this statement, it is possible that later Christians decided that the “beginning” (Yeshua) must have been one not born of woman since no mention is made of such beings after the disciples traveled and preached.

The Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the gospels, relates that Yeshua is a Jewish Messiah, and so born quite naturally in the manner expected of the Davidic Messiah. The Jewish ascetic sects who were expecting a son of David to arrive who would invoke the Parousia and regain the throne, said that he would be born in Bethlehem. The earliest references, upon which Mark's gospel is based, insist that the Messiah was instead born in Galilee at Nazareth. The last two synoptics, Matthew and Luke, attempt to correct Mark's error by again placing the Messiah's birth back in Bethlehem. The Gospel of John, which is totally unconcerned with any notion of Jewish expectations of the Messiah, places the Messiah back at Nazareth merely for the sake of argument ascribing the conflict as a “division among the people over him” (Jn. 7:43). The conflict would be a minor one if it were not for the fact that there was no such town in Galilee named Nazareth during the Messiah's birth. In a humorous self-fulfilling prophecy, the Galilean town was established in the third century after news of the Messiah's birthplace had become famous. This curious insistence on associating the Messiah with Nazareth may predate the Christian oral traditions and was told among apocalyptic groups like the Essenes, who practiced a form of sun worship. Early Christians may have considered the Messiah a sun-god. Nazareth is very closely worded to Nazaroth which in Hebrew is “the twelve signs (of the zodiac).” The root verb nazar means to “surround” as in the twelve constellations of the zodiac which pass overhead each night, thus surrounding the earth. [22] Job is reminded of his human limitations and the celestial astrological power of YEHOVAH God, when the latter speaks to him from a raging desert whirlwind:

   Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Nazaroth in his season? [23]

This theory is supported by the evidence that the inhabitants of Qumran by the Dead Sea, who Pliny referred to as Essenes, used a solar-based calendar, rather than the traditional lunar-based Judaic calendar. Pliny the Younger reported in a letter to the emperor Trajan in 112 CE that “Christians appe
ar to be harmless people who meet at daybreak and sing hymns to the honor of the Christo quasi deo (the Christ as if he were a god).”

Matthew and Luke sought to fill in the missing genealogy for the Messiah. Jewish Messiah's were considered important only in the capacity that they fulfilled the role of a “Son of man” and told their people the message of YEHOVAH God who had appointed them. The Messiah himself was unimportant compared to the mission which he was elected to perform. But when Matthew and Luke wrote, the Messiah had taken on a greater meaning to the Christians than just a fulfiller of Messianic duties. Understandably, many early Christians wanted to know more about the Messiah than the earlier texts and the sayings sources had shown. Writing independently of each other, Matthew and Luke wrote conflicting genealogies based on OT scripture and numerology.

Matthew's genealogy is an attempt to invoke credibility through powerful numerological magic. He bases the Messiah's lineage on watershed events in history in three sets of fourteen:

   “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” [24]

Since “seven” is the Hebrew magical number we find a strong desire to tailor the Messiah's genealogy in groups that are divisible by seven, and in groupings that denote historical events of which the Messiah's birth is as important as the “carrying away into Babylon” and King David himself:

Here are the six sets of seven names each that Matthew derives:
Abraham Aminadab Solomon Joatham Jechonias Achim
Isaac Naasson Roboam Achaz Salathiel Eliud
Jacob Salmon Abia Ezekias Zorobabel Eleazar
Judas Booz Asa Manasses Abiud Matthan
Phares Obed Josaphat Amon Eliakim Jacob
Esrom Jesse Joram Josias Azor Joseph
Aram David Ozias Jechonias Sadoc Jesus
Formation of Israel Babylonian Captivity Jesus as Messiah

Matthew omits Joash, Amaziah, and Azoriah from the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 and mistakenly counts Jechonias twice in order to achieve the perfect three sets of fourteen which when halved invoke the magical properties of the number seven. Yeshua can be said according to Matthew's genealogy as being the “seventh son thrice and one” of King David himself. An impressive lineage indeed and one which testifies to the powerful influences astrology and numerology had on the ancient world and the early Christians in particular. Pagan critics accused Christians of practicing chicanery and magic learned from the Masters in Egypt. Matthew and Luke's birth narratives also show astrological magic in practice by having the Messiah born when the stars are correct in the heavens. These myth-making elements liven up the gospels, but should not be taken literally. Again, we can safely assume that these accretions which attach magical properties and visiting magicians to the Messiah's birth are stories designed to Hellenize the Messiah for the pagan converts sake.

End Notes:

1. Walker, p. 1048.

2. Campbell, Occ. M., p. 210.

3. Luke 3:22. “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him…”

4. Ulansey, David, Solving the Mithraic Mysteries, Biblical Archaeology Review, Sep/Oct 1994, p. 41.

5. December 25th was the winter solstice on the pre-Gregorian Julian calendar.

6. Ulansey, David, Ibid., p. 50.

7. Campbell, Occ. M., p. 260-261.

8. Larson, Story, p. 184.

9. Temple, Kerry, Who Do Men Say That I Am?, The Humanist, May/June 1991, p. 4.

10. Wells, p. 30.

11. Larson, Essene, p. 175.

12. Cutner, p. 13.

13. Matthew 1:23.

14. Wells, p. 29.

15. Ibid., p. 29-31.

16. Larson, Story, p. 470.

17. Celsus, p. 55-56.

18. Wells, p. 30.

19. Larson, Story, p. 154.

20 Nag Hammadi, Gospel of Thomas, II, 2, (79).

21. Ibid., (15).

22. Cutner, p. 15.

23. Job 38:1-32. The Authorized Version renders Mazzaroth, which is an acceptable translation since Hebrew uses the letter m and n interchangeably.

24. Matthew 1:17
SOURCE

[Frank4YAHWEH]

The Ancient Beginnings of the Virgin Birth Myth

From about 80 A.D. to the present time, most Christian faith groups have taught that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) was conceived and born by his mother Mary, while she was still a virgin. They believe that this happened by the action of the holy spirit, without an act of sexual intercourse. However, the Virgin Birth story was not new when the Messiah was born. Mythology is full of such stories. An Egyptian Virgin Birth story, told about 2,000 years before the Messiah, had many details identical with those found in the Gospel accounts. What is the TRUTH?

John D. Keyser

Roman Catholicism has taught the doctrine of perpetual virginity — that Mary lived, gave birth to the Messiah, and remained a virgin throughout her entire life.

Islam also teaches that Mary was a virgin when she conceived the Messiah.

Some of the early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — by far the largest of the Mormon denominations — taught that YEHOVAH God has a physical body, and that He came down to earth, engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary, and conceived the Messiah. However, this was never made an official church teaching and is rarely heard of today, with the exception of statements by anti-Mormon groups who often claim that YEHOVAH God engaging in sexual intercourse with Mary is current LDS Church teaching.

The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have taught the “virgin birth,” although the term “virgin conception” would be much more accurate. This has long been one of mainstream Christianity's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; YEHOVAH God's inspiration of the authors of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and the anticipated second coming of the Messiah, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned the virgin birth.

However, there is an incompatibility between belief in the virgin birth and the messiahship of Yeshua:

1) The virgin birth implies that the actual father of Yeshua was the holy spirit.

2) Numerous places in the Hebrew Scriptures state that the coming messiah was to be of the House of David.

Therefore:

1) If Yeshua is the Messiah, then he could not have been born of a virgin; he would have had to have a father who was of the House of David, and

2) If Yeshua was born of a virgin, then he could not have been the messiah, because his father — the holy spirit — was not a human descendent of the House of David.

Most modern educated theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth. They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century A.D. and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew. Its purpose was to make Christianity more competitive with contemporary pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured their founder having been born of a virgin. Without the claim of a virgin birth, many believe it to be unclear whether “Christianity” could have survived.

Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah. This exceeds the total number of American adults who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim. In fact, 47% of non-Christian adults also believe in the virgin birth.

Conflicting Quotations Showing the Diversity of Beliefs About the Virgin Birth

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (Thomas Jefferson, 1823).

“There can be no doubt as to the Church's teaching and as to the existence of an early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The mystery of the virginal conception is furthermore taught by the third Gospel and confirmed by the first” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

“Larry King, the CNN talk show host, was once asked who he would most want to interview if he could choose anyone from all of history. He said, 'Jesus Christ.' The questioner said, 'And what would you like to ask Him?' King replied, 'I would like to ask Him if He was indeed virgin-born. The answer to that question would define history for me'.” (From Just Thinking, RZIM, Winter 1998. Cited by ChristianAnswers.net).

“Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical-biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time” (Hans Kung, On Being a Christian).

“Matthew's Gospel was written in about AD 80-90 for Christians who were not of Jewish provenance — that is, Gentiles who had no knowledge of Isaiah's original Hebrew. For them, the passage announced, unambiguously, the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy: the miraculous birth of a divine being. But the prophet himself and readers of his original Hebrew sentence regarded it as a quite specific allusion to the historical circumstances of Isaiah's age — and would have found its mutation in Greek into one of the foundations of Christian doctrine quite baffling” (Geza Vermes, discussing Isaiah 7:14).

“The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is the root from which everything the New Testament says about him grows….Both Luke and Matthew state it up front as a fact, which they are convinced explains the unusual nature of the man, Jesus, and the amazing things he said and did” (R.C. Girard & Larry Richards, The Life of Christ).

“The virgin birth is an underlying assumption of everything the Bible says about Jesus. To throw out the virgin birth is to reject Christ's deity, the accuracy and authority of Scripture, and a host of other related doctrines that are the heart of the Christian faith. No issue is more important than the virgin birth to our understanding of who Jesus is. If we deny Jesus is God, we have denied the very essence of Christianity” (John F. MacArthur, Jr. cited in The Life of Christ).

In light of the above quotations, What is the TRUTH about the Virgin Birth controversy?

Other Stories of Virgin Births

It may be thought that the story of a virgin birth is too wonderful to have been invented merely to show that a misunderstood prophecy had been fulfilled, and that so miraculous a doctrine could not, without some basis of fact, suddenly be created by any mind, however fertile. But a study of ancient literature discloses the fact that myths of virgin births were part of many — if not all — of the surrounding pagan religions in the place where, and at the time when, Christianity arose.

“The gods have lived on earth in the likeness of men” was a common saying among ancient pagans, and supernatural events were believed in as explanations of the god's arrival upon earth in human guise.

The Egyptian Myths

About two thousand years before the Christian era Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, was said to have given birth to the Pharaoh Amenkept (or Amenophis) III, who built the temple of Luxor, on the walls of which were represented:

1) The Annunciation: the god Taht announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother.

2) The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the holy spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

3) The Birth of the Man-god.

4) The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol.

In another Egyptian temple, one dedicated to Hathor, at Denderah, one of the chambers was called “The Hall of the Child in his Cradle”; and in a painting which was once on the walls of that temple, and is now in Paris, we can see represented the Holy Virgin Moth
er with her Divine Child in her arms. The temple and the painting are undoubtedly pre-Christian.

Therefore, we find that long before the Christian era there were already pictured — in pagan places of worship — virgin mothers and their divine children, and that such pictures included scenes of an Annunciation, an Incarnation, and a Birth and Adoration, just as the Gospels written in the second century A.D. describe them, and that these events were in some way connected with the God Taht, who was identified by Gnostics with the Logos.

And, besides these myths about Mut-em-ua and Hathor, many other origins of a virgin birth story can be traced in Egypt.

Another Egyptian god, Ra (the Sun), was said to have been born of a virgin mother, Net (or Neith), and to have had no father.

Horus was said to be the parthenogenetic child of the Virgin Mother, Isis. In the catacombs of Rome black statues of this Egyptian divine Mother and Infant still survive from the early Christian worship of the Virgin and Child to which they were converted. In these the Virgin Mary is represented as a black negress, and often with the face veiled in the true Isis fashion. When Christianity absorbed the pagan myths and rites it also adopted the pagan statues, and renamed them as saints, or even as apostles.

Statues of the goddess Isis with the child Horus in her arms were common in Egypt, and were exported to all neighboring and to many remote countries, where they are still to be found with new names attached to them — Christian (Roman Catholicism) in Europe, Buddhist in Turkestan, Taoist in China and Japan. Figures of the virgin Isis do duty as representations of Mary, of Hariti, of Kuan-Yin, of Kwannon, and of other virgin mothers of gods.

And these were not the only pre-Christian statuettes and engravings of divine mothers and children. Such figures were stamped on very ancient Athenian coins. Among the oldest relics of Carthage, of Cyprus, and of Assyria figures of a divine mother and her babe-god are found. Such figures were known under a great variety of names to the followers of various sects; the mothers as Venus, Juno, Mother-Earth, Fortune, etc., and the children as Hercules, Dionysos, Jove, Wealth, etc. In India similar figures are not uncommon, many of them representing Devaki with the babe Krishna at her breast, others representing various less well-known Indian divinities.

It is difficult to assign the exact position in the divine hierarchy which polytheists believed their various gods to occupy. Their beliefs probably differed, and were certainly vague. The better-educated classes were — without a doubt — inclined to be skeptical then, as at all times, and to regard all these stories of different manifestations of divinity as more or less allegorical or symbolic. And, when they were not skeptical, their minds became so entangled in the complexities of metaphysical speculation that the stories they told grew very confused. On the other hand, the ignorant classes, both rich and poor, certainly believed in the most miraculous explanations of the pantheon which the priests could invent. By such people, the more improbable the alleged fact, the better they liked it.

The Sacred Bull

In Egypt we also find that Apis — the sacred bull of Memphis and a god of the ancient Egyptian Pantheon — was believed to have been begotten by a deity descending as a ray of moonlight on the cow which was to become the mother of the sacred beast. As a result he was regarded as the son of the god.

This miracle was said to be constantly repeated.

An Apis — according to Plutarch and the ancient Mathematici — was conceived every time a cow “in season” happened to be struck by a beam of light from the moon.

The Mathematici, of course, realized that the light of the moon was really the reflection of the light of the sun, and they therefore believed that the moon received her male generative power as proxy for the sun, the creator of all things.

Apis, the living calf, was regarded as a re-incarnation of Osiris — or at any rate as an emblem of the spirit or soul of Osiris. He is occasionally represented as a man with the head of a bull.

It is more than likely that the story of the rape of Europa by Jove (in the guise of a bull) originated in this myth of a cow impregnated by a ray from the moon. The idea of a god incarnate in a bull easily gave rise to variants of this kind.

Notes Insight On the Scriptures —

“Shortly after the Exodus, even the Israelites, likely because of being contaminated by the religious concepts with which they became acquainted while in Egypt, exchanged Jehovah's glory for “a representation of a bull.” (Ps. 106:19, 20) Later, the first king of the ten-tribe kingdom, Jeroboam, set up a calf worship at Dan and Bethel. (1Ki 12:28, 29) Of course, according to God's law to Israel, no veneration whatsoever, not even in a representative way, was to be given to the bull or any other animal. — Ex 20:4, 5; compare Ex 32:8″ (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. 1988, Vol. 1, p. 374).

Perhaps the most curious and best known variant of the bull-lover theme is the story about Pasiphae, the wife of Minos. She was said to have developed a violent passion for the bull which Poseidon (Neptune) had sent to her husband. So, with the aid of an artist named Daedalus, she disguised herself as a cow and resorted to the meadow in which the bull grazed. The fruit of her union with the bull was the celebrated Minotaur, partly human, partly bovine, which Minos shut up in the Labyrinth. The ancient superstition that monsters have been born from the union of human beings and animals survived until quite recently — and probably still exists among the uneducated and semi-educated. Exact, or comparatively exact, knowledge of the possibilities of hybridization is a science of quite recent growth.

It should be noted that the Minotaur was named after the husband of his mother, as well as after his real father the Tauros. That is a peculiarity of many of these stories.

Virgin Births in Other Countries

In many other countries besides Egypt similar stories of the virgin birth of gods were told.

Attis, the Phrygian god, was said to be the son of the virgin Nana, who conceived him by putting a ripe almond or pomegranate in her bosom.

The Grecian God Dionysos was said — in one version of the myth concerning him — to be the son of Zeus out of the virgin goddess Persephone. In another version he was said to be the miraculously begotten son of Zeus out of the mortal woman Semele. According to this story he was taken from his mother's womb before the full period of gestation had expired, and completed his embryonic life in Zeus's thigh. As a result, Dionysos was considered to be half human and half divine — born of a woman and also of a god.

His myth, which was current long before the Christian era, is a remarkable example of the kind of story which could be, and was, invented about a man-god. He was said to have been persecuted by Pentheus, King of Thebes (the home of his mother); to have been rejected in his own country; and, when bound, to have asserted that his father, God, would set him free whenever he chose to appeal to him. He disappears from earth, but re-appears as a light shining more brightly than the sun, and speaks to his trembling disciples; and he subsequently visits Hades. The story of his birth is alluded to, and the story of his persecution related, in The Bacchae, which Euripides wrote about 410 B.C. when the myth was already very old and very well known.

Jason, who was slain by Zeus, was said to have been another son of the virgin Persephone, and to have had no father, either human or divine.

Perseus was also said to have been born of a virgin; and it is this story which Justin Martyr — the second-century Christian “Father of the Church” — stigmatizes as an invention of the Devil, who, knowing that the Messiah would subsequently be born of a virg
in, counterfeited the miracle before it really took place.

The “Fathers of the Church” frequently gave this explanation of the numerous pre-Christian virgin birth stories to which their rivals tauntingly referred.

Adonis, the Syrian god; Osiris, the first person of the principal Egyptian Trinity; and Mithra, the Persian god whom so many of the Roman soldiers worshipped — all had strange tales told about their births.

At the time when Christianity arose all these gods were worshipped in various parts of the Roman empire.

Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, Osiris, and Mithra were the principal gods in their respective countries; and those countries together formed the greater part of the Eastern provinces of the Roman empire, and of its great rival, the Persian empire.

Virgin Births in Classical Mythology

Classical mythology is full of similar stories, and the idea of a virgin birth was familiar to all men of that time.

Of Plato it was related that his mother Perictione was a virgin who conceived him immaculately by the god Apollo. Apollo himself revealed the circumstances of this conception to Ariston, the betrothed husband of the virgin.

Virginity, perhaps on account of its rarity in those days among women of a marriageable age, had always a halo of sanctity cast over it by barbaric and semi-civilized tribes. Even in civilized Rome itself the Vestal Virgins were looked upon as peculiarly sacred.

Strangely, this reverence for virginity seems to have sometimes been contemporaneous with the institution of religious prostitution on a large scale. There is, indeed, no reason why this should not have been the case, incongruous though it seems to us, as such religious prostitution was looked upon very differently from the way in which it would now be regarded.

Originally it was an institution designed to bring fertility to the fields by sympathetic magic. The sacrifice of chastity in the service of the goddess was an act of devotion — not an act of licentiousness. When studying these customs we must remember that we are dealing with men and women brought up in an entirely different psychological climate from our own. A veneration for chastity was with them not incompatible with periodic orgies, nor with places set aside for sacred prostitution or asceticism. Such prostitution was regarded as an alternative way of making a sacrifice for the public good.

It is likely that an historian of the future may well find it difficult to reconcile our own professions and our own practice in similar matters, and will be confused by the protestations of virtuous horror which he reads alongside of accounts given by the same authors of conspicuous lapses from virtue.

The conventions of romance are not always the same as the customs of the people. They reflect the theory rather than the practice. Extremes are always more conspicuous than the mean.

An old story about the children of AEgyptus and of Danaus is a myth that curiously illustrates this same reverence felt for virginity by the ancients in romance rather than in reality.

The former had fifty sons; the latter fifty daughters. The former ruled over Arabia; the latter over Libya. They quarreled over the kingdom of Egypt which AEgyptus had conquered, and when AEgyptus tried to patch up the quarrel by sending his sons to marry the daughters of Danaus the latter pretended to consent, but provided his daughters with daggers and with instructions how to use them. On their wedding night all the daughters of Danaus, save one, murdered their husbands in their sleep. Hypermnestra spared her husband Lynceus because he had respected her virginity, and not availed himself of his marital privileges.

So Lynceus survived the slaughter of his brethren, and lived happily ever after with Hypermnestra, by whom he had at least one son.

The Curious Veneration for Virginity

It is not possible here to discuss at length the origin and history of the curious veneration for virginity which was current at this period. However, it is of interest to note that the belief that some occult power was attached to the state of virginity survived even up to the Middle Ages of our era.

For example, it was thought that virgins were peculiarly efficient as bait for Unicorns. The Unicorn, or rather his congener the Monoceros, was evidently a fastidious beast that could only be attracted by a virgin. On finding one tied up in the forest as a lure he was enticed to kiss her, and then to fall asleep on her breast. Whereupon the brave hunter came up and slew him in his sleep. If the young woman was not really a virgin, the Monoceros immediately killed her and disappeared before the hunter arrived.

This method of hunting the Monoceros is described in the Bestiary of Philip de Thaun, written in the twelfth century, and is but one of the many strange facts alleged by authors of that period in support of the theory that virginity had special virtues when dealing with animals, with demons, and with human beings.

It was a semi-romantic, semi-religious halo that was cast over this particular physical condition.

To the Vestal Virgins in Rome were attributed the faculty of prophesying and many sacred virtues. All virgins were immune from death at the hand of the executioner, and the Vestals enjoyed many other privileges so long as they preserved their chastity.

The same idea is found in the histories of miraculous virgins that are so numerous in the mythologies of Asia. Such, for example, was the Chinese legend that tells how, when there was but one man with one woman upon earth, the woman refused to sacrifice her virginity — even in order to people the globe. The gods, honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive beneath the gaze of her lover's eyes, and a virgin-mother became the parent of humanity.

One of the legends which arose, as Buddhism degenerated from its original lofty idealism, was to the effect that the Buddha Gautama was given birth to by Maya, an immaculate virgin who conceived him through a divine influence.

Gautama the Buddha, was the son of a Hindu rajah named Suddhodana, and was born, in the ordinary course of nature, in 563 B.C. He never claimed to be a god, neither did he nor his disciples claim that his birth was miraculous.

But in after years a myth arose among Buddhists to the effect that his mother Maya — having been divinely chosen to give birth to the Buddha — was borne away by spirits to the Himalayas, where she underwent ceremonial purifications at the hands of four queens. The Bodhisattva then appeared to her, and walked round her three times. At the moment when he completed his travels the Buddha (the incarnate Bodhisattva) entered her womb, and great wonders took place in heaven, on earth, and in hell.

Her body became transparent, so that the babe could distinctly be seen before it was born; and he was finally born without any of the pain and suffering which usually attend the births of mortal infants.

Events Surrounding the Messiah's Birth in Matthew and Luke

The “multitude of the heavenly host” who, according only to Luke, sang before the shepherds as they watched their flocks by night while the Messiah was being born, are paralleled in Buddhist scriptures by a heavenly host who worship the Buddha in heaven immediately before his descent into his mother's womb.

The miraculous birth is pre-announced both to Maya and to her husband, King Suddhodana, who parts from her for thirty-two months, so that she should live immaculately during the whole of that time.

Maya, “in order that the (Buddhist) scriptures might be fulfilled,” was on a journey when the birth took place as, according to Luke, was Mary when the Messiah was born.

Some of the Apocryphal Gospels give fuller details than the Canonical of the wonders attending the birth of the Messiah. In these — as also in the account given in the Koran — the resemblances to the Buddhist legends are even more remarkable tha
n those to be found, as we have already seen, in the Gospels according to Matthew and to Luke. The latter has, however, another story which corresponds closely with the earlier Buddhist legends about Gautama.

The devout Simeon who is filled with the holy ghost and recognizes the child Yeshua as the Messiah (Luke 2:25-35) is a duplicate of the Holy Brahmin Asita, who recognizes the child Gautama as the Buddha. He, Simeon, speaks of the Messiah as “a light to lighten the Gentiles” (verse 32), using the same metaphor as is used in the gatha with which, later on in the story, the young Gautama is greeted by the rishis: “In the darkness of the world a light has appeared to lighten all who are in ignorance.”

And Matthew's story of Herod being told that one who would be “King of the Jews” had been born, and of the consequent massacre of the innocents, also corresponds with Buddhist legend.

Luke's account of the child Yeshua confounding all the learned doctors of the temple with his “understanding” is a modified version of stories, told in the apocryphal Gospel of the First Infancy, of the child Yeshua's precocity in grammar, arithmetic, astronomy, and physics. Those stories are themselves paralleled by legends of the youthful Gautama's extensive knowledge, and of how he himself teaches the guru engaged for his education.

In the case of both Catholicism and Buddhism the Virgin Birth stories came as later explanations of the spiritual uniqueness already accounted for otherwise.

The Indian Myths

And, long before the rise of Buddhism, the story of Rama's miraculous birth had been told to millions of Hindus:

1) Rama was conceived, so the story went, by his mother drinking a sacred potion prepared by the god Vishnu himself.

2) The wives of King Dasharatha drank of this “divine rice and milk.”

3) From one of them was born Rama; from another, Bharata; and from the third, who had drunk a double portion, Laksmana and Satrughna.

Therefore, Vishnu became not only the parent of Rama but, by re-incarnation, became identical with that Rama whose virtues and exploits are celebrated in the great Indian epic, the Ramayana, and whose worshippers can still be numbered by millions.

Sita, the bride of Rama, was said to be not born of human parents, but sprung from a furrow as her reputed father ploughed the ground.

These Buddhist and Hindu myths are, of course, generally connected with the doctrine of reincarnation. The god chooses a human father and mother, and then his soul enters the embryo of their child.

But this re-incarnation idea does not really distinguish them clearly from other virgin birth stories, as many of the latter, including the Christian story, involve the doctrine of a preexistent being. So the only distinction — and that more apparent than real — which can sometimes, though not always, be made is that in some of the Indian cases other human incarnations had previously taken place.

In some of the uncanonical stories of the incarnation of the Messiah it is said that the Messiah's spirit had previously been incarnate in Adam, Abraham, and other prophets — and it has even been alleged that it was subsequently incarnate in Mohammed.

Moreover, in a great number of these myths of miraculous births — which are to be found, as might be expected, in the Hindu scriptures — the re-incarnation theme has been dropped out and the popular story left free from all metaphysical subtleties.

We will now refer to a few more of the best known of these stories. However, it should be remembered that in the course of time, some of these 3,000-year-old myths have evolved into a number of different versions and so, in minor details, discrepancies between the stories as related here and as related elsewhere may be noticed. As far as possible the best authorities have been consulted and followed.

The Pandavas, the heroes of the Mahabharata, were not the sons of Pandu, though they took their names from him and were born of his wives Kunti and Madri. Their fathers were respectively the gods Dharma, Vayu, Indra, and the Aswins, the latter twins and jointly the fathers of twins.

Even the Kauravas, cousins and rivals of the Pandavas, were abnormally, though in this case not divinely, born. One hundred of them were born at one birth, a number considerably exceeded by a lady named Sumati, who, according to another Indian myth, gave birth to a gourd which burst open and produced 60,000 children. There are, of course, many legends — even European — about the birth of large numbers of children at one time. A well known one relates the circumstances in which a Countess of Henneberg gave birth, in the year 1276, to 365 children at one time — half of them being male, half female, and the odd one an hermaphrodite!

The Pandavas, like so many other divinely-born children, had to flee for their lives, because it was foretold to the King that they would one day reign in his stead and rule over his own children.

Before she married Pandu, Kunti, the future mother of three of these Pandavas, had once been given a charm which enabled her to have a child by any one of the gods whom she thought of.

Out of curiosity, she invoked the Sun, and by him became the mother of Karna, who was born fully clothed in armor. This demi-god, Karna, is spoken of as “an emanation from the hot-beamed Sun,” who was able, on important occasions, to illuminate his semi-mortal son living upon the earth by his rays.

To conceal the birth of a strangely begotten son, Kunti placed him in a box made of wicker work soon after he was born, and floated him down the Ganges. He was then rescued by a charioteer who brought him up as his own child.

It was not only to the virtuous heroes that miraculous births were ascribed, but sometimes also to the wicked villains of mythology:

Kansa, the king of Mathura and persecutor of the divine hero Krishna, was said to be the child of an union consummated by violence in the jungle between a demon and the mortal woman Pavanareka.

In another myth Kartikeya, who was incarnated for the purpose of saving the gods from the armies of the demons, is said to have been given birth to by Ganga (the river Ganges), into whom (or which) the male germ of life had been dropped by Siva.

There are other curious myths about this god Kartikeya, who was supposed to have had six or seven mothers. This was accounted for, in one of these myths, by his having been suckled by six young women who were coming to bathe in the Ganges when he was born. In another myth he was suckled by Svaka, his actual mother, having successively assumed the forms of seven wives of Rishis on her visits to the god Agni (Siva), whom she repeatedly seduced.

An even more primitive myth describes how Garuda, the bird god who acted as Vishnu's chariot, was hatched from an egg which his mother, Vinata, a daughter of the patriarch Daksha, laid.

Many of these Hindu myths about the birth of their gods are, as we have noted before, stories of re-incarnation in what seemed to the Hindus to be very much the ordinary course of nature. Others, however, are very often accounts of a child being born merely as an effect of concentrated thought on the part of the parent god, such thought giving birth, or rise, to a divine-human being who is, therefore, a conception of the mind of the god concerned — a materialized emanation of the Supreme God, or of some minor deity. A considerable number of such asexual births are recorded in the Hindu Scriptures, and we can trace how what was probably originally a purely metaphysical speculation or poetical fantasy takes shape as a supposed material fact.

The children are sometimes mental emanations, and others sprung from the glory of the god's countenance or from the sparks cast from his eyes, and in at least one case — Ganesa from Parvati — born of the emanations from the body of a goddess.

In some stories
children begotten in the usual way are said to have been born in a strange manner, as, for example, by drops of sweat from the mother being received by trees, collected together by the wind, and matured by the sun. In this way Pramlocki gave birth to Marisha, the future mother of the patriarch Daksha, who has already been mentioned.

It is of interest to note, in connection with Indian mythology, that Hanuman, the monkey-shaped god, was said to have been begotten by the wind-god.

One Indian case of alleged incarnation of a god is especially remarkable because it took place in comparatively modern times. In 1640 Ganapati, the Indian god of wisdom, is said to have appeared to a very holy Brahmin of Poona, and to have imbued him, as a mark of his especial favor, with a portion of his own holy spirit.

This idea seems at first to closely parallel that of the Gnostic inspiration doctrines than that of a more carnal connection with the god. But Ganapati went further than the inspiration of an individual, as he made a covenant that the senior descendants from Muraba Goseyn should likewise partake of his divine nature unto the seventh generation. Muraba Goseyn therefore became a portion of the god himself. The seventh descendant has now passed away, but only quite recently the last of these man-gods was still worshipped in India, and said to perform occasional miracles. It is so easy to observe miracles when miracles are expected!

Divine Kingships

The Egyptian pharaohs were all looked upon as divine — as the sons of god, or as the incarnations of some one god, or even of several gods at the same time. This divinity was, of course, regarded as hereditary. In order that the royal and divine blood should be kept absolutely pure, it was enacted that the only legitimate sons of a pharaoh were those born of his marriage with his own sister.

But even when the throne of the pharaohs passed to a usurper, the latter, if he supported the priests, was soon able to take on the divine as well as the other titles of his predecessors, and demand divine honors from his subjects.

It has been correctly stated that the deification of Alexander the Great by the Egyptian priests — and his being called the son of the god Amen — was merely a formality gone through by every usurper who seized the throne of the pharaohs after overthrowing the preceding dynasty. It may be that neither the priests nor Alexander himself had any illusions about the matter; but the point which concerns us here is that the public of the day was prepared to accept the king as a god and as the son of a god.

Moreover, the legends about the birth of Alexander arose quite independently of any apotheosis of the king by the priests.

A supernatural parentage seemed, to the men of his time, the best explanation of genius such as his; and the many varieties that are to be found of the legend show that it originated in the usual way of legend — gossip passing into tradition, and not in the pronouncement of a priesthood.

According to the best-known version of the story, Philip of Macedonia, the ostensible father of Alexander, discovered his wife in the embraces of a serpent, and thereafter — whether from fear of sharing his connubial couch with so unpleasant a bed-fellow, or from fear of offending the god — he seldom entered her bed. The courtiers of Alexander accounted in this way for the birth of their master and hero, who was thus shown to be not only descended, through his legal father, Philip, from Hercules, but also from Jupiter, whose amours had been conducted in the lowly guise of the serpent.

It is interesting to note that the double pedigree holds good: the descent through the supposed father and the descent through the actual father are both credited to the hero.

Another story relates that Nectanebus, having prophesied to Olympias, the mother of Alexander, that she would give birth to a son whose father would be the god Ammon, enjoyed, in the guise of that god, the embraces of the queen.

Oriental nations and, imitatively, even the Greeks in their degenerate days, showed a tendency to deify their kings and generals. Even when they did not actually worship them, they gave them titles which we are inclined to regard as Divine — such as “Soter” (Savior), a title given to Ptolemy I, and “Epiphanes,” a title given to Antiochus IV.

Besides Alexander, Lysander and others were also given divine honors during their lifetime.

Demetrius was hailed by the Athenians as the Only God. When we consider the divine or semi-divine honors paid in historical times to men like Miltiades, Brasidas, Sophocles, Dion, Aratus, and Philopoemen — whose real existence is incontestable — it seems impossible to deny that the tendency to deify ordinary mortals was an operative principle in ancient Greek religion. The distinction between human and divine seemed so small to anthropomorphists as to be entirely negligible.

Many of the Roman emperors also were, during their lifetime, worshipped as gods, and, after their death, admitted to the Pantheon. By a decree the emperor Hadrian deified his favorite Antinous who had been drowned in the Nile.

Love of Gods for Mortal Women

One of the favorite subjects for romance in ancient days was the love of gods for mortal women. That the gods were at times inclined to visit favored ladies was believed by all credulous folk — and nearly all men were credulous in those days!

Silvia, the wife of Septimius Marcellus, was said to have had a child by the god Mars. It may be that this legend about the wife of Septimius Marcellus arose from her name Silvia, as the mother of Romulus and Remus — so a still older myth related — was a vestal virgin named Rhea Silvia, and their father was Mars.

Many similar stories were told, and believed, of other women, both illustrious and humble.

Until a growing skepticism made the plot appear unreal — or a more refined or hypocritical taste debarred such subjects from literature — comic authors of all countries were fond of writing tales about foolish women who, believing that they had found favor in the eyes of a god, gave themselves up to the embraces of cunning priests or of secular womanizers who had bribed the priests to help them in their deceptions.

But sober historians also record as facts — and there is no reason for doubting these facts — several episodes of this kind:

1) Mundus, a Roman patrician — so Josephus and several other authors relate — bribed the priests of Isis to induce a married lady named Paulina, a devout worshipper of the god Anubis, to come to their temple at night to meet the god, whom they alleged to be enamored of her charms. Mundus impersonated the god, and thus enjoyed the favors of the lady who, up till then, had always rejected his advances.

2) Demaratus, the presumptive son of Ariston, about whose parentage there were grave doubts, was told by his mother that there had come to her one night, in the appearance of Ariston, a man with a garland which he placed on her head. Upon the departure of this man, Ariston himself had come to her and inquired as to the origin of the garland which she was still wearing. He denied that he had visited her earlier in the night, and identified the garland as one which came from the temple of the god Astrabacus. The soothsayers who were called in and consulted about the affair declared that the visitor must have been Astrabacus himself!

Therefore, if Demaratus was not the son of Ariston, he was the son of the god Astrabacus.

This event was supposed to have taken place about the year 510 B.C., but long before that a somewhat similar tale was told about the birth of Hercules —

3) Hercules' mother, Alcmena, was the wife of Amphitryon, who, at the time when our story begins, was away hunting the Cadmean vixen and performing other actions worthy of a Greek hero. Shortly before his return to his wife, Zeus assumed his likeness and took his place in Alcmena's bed, at the same time p
rolonging the night so that it lasted as long as three ordinary days and nights. On the next day Amphitryon returned, and, not finding himself so warmly welcomed as he hoped and expected, inquired the reason, and learnt that he had, so Alcmena thought, already spent the previous night with her. He then discovered the trick which the chief of the gods had played upon him. Alcmena subsequently gave birth to two boys, of whom Hercules, the son of Zeus, was older by one day than Iphicles, the son of Amphitryon.

An event of a similar kind was reported to have taken place in much later days: A princess of Gasna is said to have been seduced by an adventurer named Malek, who pretended to be Mohammed.

These old stories, and others like them, were probably the origin of the numerous tales with a similar plot to be found in the novels of French and Italian authors of the Renaissance period and later.

So the story of Nectanebus having impersonated the god Ammon and begotten Alexander may well have been invented by men anxious to detract from the fame of the Macedonian hero; but the female credulity which it alleges was certainly very common —

At the temple of Belus, at Thebes, a different woman used to be dedicated to the god every night, and to sleep in a chamber at the summit of the building.

At the great temple in Babylon a similar custom existed.

At Patara, in Lycia, a priestess was locked in the temple every night to receive the embraces of the god.

Jupiter Ammon was visited by the most beautiful and most noble ladies in Egypt.

Thus we learn, from classical authors, that the notion of the gods visiting mortal women and becoming fathers of their children was commonly entertained throughout the near East in Greek and Roman times.

Some of the priests must have known who it was that impersonated the god on these occasions; but probably others, and certainly the general lay public, believed that the god himself actually generated mortal children. We cannot tell for certain whether Alexander really came to believe that he was the son of Jupiter Ammon. Men in his position are subject to megalomania, and megalomaniacs are capable of entertaining such beliefs. But we do know that he posed as son of the god and was acclaimed in his lifetime as divine, and that he demanded from his courtiers and other subjects the honors usually paid only to gods.

He had been informed by the oracle of Ammon — flattering priests who impersonated the god — that he was the son of Zeus and, his pride swollen by conquest, he eventually seems to have believed that this was really a fact. That the priests should hail as a god one who could and did shower rich presents upon them is not surprising. But that even the Greeks, in spite of their philosophy and their democratic theories, should so degrade themselves is to be accounted for only by the blinding effects on men's minds of success so striking and so vast as Alexander's. Man idolizes that which he fears, that which he envies, and that from which wealth, power, and all other earthly blessings seem to flow.

Transitory Cults and Real Religions

The precise relation of these transitory cults to the real religions of the near East cannot, of course, be exactly determined. The fact of their having existed, however, shows the readiness of men in those ages to set up new gods, and to accept mortal men as gods.

Like individuals, some cults die in youth, by accident or by not being well fitted to survive in competition with others. In Western Asia and the neighboring lands scores of religions have arisen and left records, more or less blurred, of their existence. Doubtless many scores of others have arisen and disappeared without leaving any distinguishable traces behind them.

Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are the most conspicuous survivors of a host of cults which, at different times, sprang, apparently suddenly, into existence — many of them with doctrines and stories not very dissimilar to those of their more fortunate rivals.

The Invention of Pedigrees

We are not presently concerned with these stories except in so far as they incorporate a miraculous birth story. This the Zingis Khan legend does.

When Zingis the Mogul had conquered a great part of Asia and become master of a formidable and aggressive empire and a terror to the whole Eastern world, his courtiers evolved for him a genealogy which traced his descent seven generations back to an immaculate virgin. He received the title of Son of God, and divine honors from his subjects.

Even when the founder of a family has neither known nor cared about the names of his ancestors, his descendants and their courtiers usually invent a pedigree suitable for the wealthy and powerful.

The pedigree of Togrul Beg, the first of the Seljuk dynasty, was unknown to contemporary experts in genealogy. Yet, when the Seljuks had carved out a vast empire for themselves and the Turks, a lengthy pedigree was attached to the name of their founder, and at the beginning of that family tree we find the name of Alankavah, who is described as a virgin mother.

Nurhachu, who was born in 1559 A.D. and eventually united for the first time all the Manchu tribes into one great confederacy which conquered the Chinese Mongols, was the grandson of Aisiu Gioro. The latter, so the Chinese legend relates, was made chieftain of his tribe because of his miraculous birth. He was the son of a virgin, into whose lap, as she sat on the banks of a lake, a red fruit was dropped by a magpie. The effect of the red fruit was such that she immediately conceived, and nine months later gave birth to a son, Aisiu Gioro. Gioro was destined to become the grandfather of the great Nurhachu.

Thus do legends arise to account for the birth of great men!

The Scythians, who inhabited the Crimea and Southern Russia, had a tradition that their race was descended from a man named Targitaus, who was a child of Jove and “a daughter of the Borysthenes” — i.e., of God and of a mortal woman. The approximate date of the birth of Targitaus would be, according to the Scythian legend, about 1500 B.C.

The Greeks told another story, attributing the birth of one Scythes, the first Scythian, to the union of Hercules — that always prolific parent — with a being who was half woman and half serpent. This being had stolen his mares, so that Hercules was unable to continue the journey upon which he was engaged; and she refused to surrender them unless Hercules made her his mistress. The satisfaction of her demands resulted in triplets, of which Scythes was the youngest.

Herodotus also relates that the Tauri worshipped a virgin goddess. This was probably either Iphigenia or Artemis, to both of whom we refer elsewhere. Around the birth of Tamerlane arose many curious legends, which are gravely recorded by his biographers.

Lowly Births a Common Feature

The lowly as well as marvelous birth of heroes is likewise a common feature of legends and myths. For example, Sargon, the semi-legendary king of Accad, one of the earliest rulers of whom any historical records have been found, is made to describe himself as

“Sargon, the mighty king, the king of Agade, am I; My mother was lowly, my father I knew not. My lowly mother conceived me; in secret she brought me forth.”

Gudea, a Sumerian king, later in time than Sargon but reigning as early as the first half of the third millennium B.C., used to boast, it is recorded, that he had neither father nor mother. He worshipped the god Ningirsu, who is said to have visited him and to have given him injunctions as to the building of temples, the purification of cities, the burnt-offerings to be made at his own shrines, and the false priests to be destroyed

Different from Ordinary Men

Even when the birth of the hero is not alleged to be virginal, it is distinguished in some way or other from the birth of ordinary men. I
n one type of such stories great men are said to have been removed from the wombs of their mothers by an operation, instead of being birthed in the normal manner. Julius Caesar is said to have been brought into the world in such a manner. Shakespeare, in one of his plots, uses this same theme. Macbeth is told by the witches that he cannot be slain by a man born of a woman, and is eventually killed by Macduff who “was from his mother's womb untimely ripp'd.” There is nothing miraculous alleged; yet such stories show how prevalent was the belief that famous men were usually born in some exceptional manner, and that men born in an unusual way were capable of doing things impossible to ordinary men.

Shakespeare is not writing history, but weaving into his tale a popular legend of great antiquity. The authors of the Caesarian story, on the other hand, were writing what they intended for history. Such stories used to be regarded as facts, fully explanatory of genius and good fortune. They came to be regarded as fictions that were very useful in the making of plots. Not that the operation has not often been performed by modern surgeons, perhaps even by ancient physicians; but it is no longer regarded as being an adjunct of genius, a portent, or a mark of divine esteem.

To the founders of all great religions (either mythical or historical) virginal or other remarkable births are usually attributed. We have already referred to the Buddha's birth, as also to the myths about Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, and Osiris. Three other great religions remain to be mentioned:

1) Lao-Tzu, the actual or semi-legendary philosopher, whose works form the foundation of the now degenerate Taoist, and perhaps even of the still lofty Confucian, religions in China, is said to have been the son of Lao — a virgin who conceived him by the sight of a falling star.

2) Among the legends which grew up round the name of Zarathustra (or Zoroaster as he is now better known) after his death was one to the effect that his mother conceived him by drinking a cup of Homa, the sacred drink which so often figures in Persian and (as Soma) in ancient Hindu legends.

The educated Zoroastrian of today does not believe in such myths; but, as in other religions, its myths were at one time believed by all men, and are still believed by the less well educated.

3) It is said that Amina, the mother of Mohammed, told the latter's grandfather that she had seen, shortly before the birth of the prophet, a light proceeding from her body which illuminated the whole neighborhood.

Another story told of Amina is, though not impossible, exceedingly improbable. This is to the effect that her husband, the father of Mohammed, was so handsome and attractive that on the night of his wedding with Amina two hundred disappointed maidens died of jealousy and despair.

Islam is very much poorer in birth stories (and, in fact, in all stories of the miraculous) than any of the other great religions of the world — probably on account of the comparative lateness of its origin and because of the fierce historical light which shone upon it from the beginning. This is so even though it conquered lands where such miraculous stories were exceedingly common.

One of its predecessors in western Asia was Manichaesism, a post-Christian religion which blended Christian and Zoroastrian doctrines (with some peculiar to Islam itself) into a whole which was sometimes regarded by Christians as a heresy — and sometimes as a pagan religion.

The Manichaeans related that a certain Terebinthus, said to have been the writer of the books from which Manes, their founder, learnt his doctrines, was born of a virgin. If there is any truth in the traditions about Terebinthus, he must have lived in the first or the early part of the second century A.D. This story of his virgin birth would therefore be another example of the ease with which claims to such miraculous births were made and granted at that period in the world's history. Even if Terebinthus himself is altogether mythical, the fact that the story was told shows that it was credible to men of the third century. That it was considered not only credible — but even probable — that men of great piety should be born of virgins is illustrated by a much later example of such a story:

It was told that St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican order of monks, was born of an immaculate conception. To this twelfth-century saint belongs, in all likelihood, the honor of being the last man in Europe — though, as we have already seen, not in Asia — for whom a virgin birth has been claimed. However, this myth was not very widely accepted, and it is now devoutly buried in various old biographies of the saint, where it is unlikely to be resurrected by even his most ardent admirers.

A curious Christian sect known as the Nazoreans, or Sabaeans, which is still to be found in the neighborhood of Basra, believe that John the Baptist was conceived by the chaste kisses imprinted on the lips of the elderly Elizabeth by her husband Zacharias.

Miraculous Birth Stories in Folklore

Stories about miraculous births are to be found in folklore as well as in religious histories and traditions:

A Sicilian tale, probably of ancient origin, tells of a king's daughter who was shut up in a tower which had no aperture through which the sun could shine, since it had been foretold that she would conceive a child by the sun and her father was anxious to prevent this from happening. The girl, however, made a small hole in the wall with a piece of bone and a sunbeam — entering through this hole — impregnated her.

Among the Red Indians of the North American continent similar tales are told about women who have become pregnant by being struck by the rays of the sun as they lie upon their beds. The children thus conceived eventually visit the sun, and, like Phaeton in the old story told by Ovid and by many of his predecessors, take over their father's business for one day, and nearly involve the whole world in destruction by their inexperienced clumsiness in driving his chariot or in controlling his heat.

This form of the miraculous birth story also has a long ancestry —

Danae was said to have been impregnated by Zeus in the shape of a shower of gold which fell in her lap, even though she had been shut up by her father Acrisius in a bronze chamber specially built to protect her from such an unwanted event.

In another myth of a similar nature a Siberian maiden of the Kirgis tribe was impregnated by the eye of God.

The peculiarity of this form of the story is that the mortals are generally said to make every endeavor to avoid the woman's union with the god. With great plausibility, therefore, some of the ancients themselves attributed this class of legend to explanations given of the birth of illegitimate children. No one would have thought of doubting a story by which the reputation of the king's daughter was not only preserved, but enhanced. Why should they wish to doubt it? They had all heard curious stories of similar events having taken place long ago in other countries, and now they were in the fortunate position of being almost eyewitnesses of so glorious a sign of divine favor. They could tell their children and grandchildren, and strangers from other less-favored lands a tale to make them wonder — and could vouch for it as having happened to their own immediate knowledge.

We have all learned in recent years — even if we did not know it before — how men and women are apt to claim immediate and intimate personal knowledge of events which have really never taken place. How otherwise honest people will claim to have seen with their own eyes, or to have heard with their own ears, things which were never done and words which were never spoken makes an interesting study. In ancient times such legends, once well started, were seldom contradicted. No inquisitive skeptics made inquiries and shattered beliefs in
new fairy tales. No enterprising newspaper proprietors re-awakened the flagging interest of their clients by contradicting this week the exciting story they had vouched for last week. Gossip became legend, and legend became myth — with no historic searching of the archives for documentary proofs or cross-examining the witnesses. Men, then even more than now, longed for romance rather than for facts.

These last examples, however, have been culled from folk-lore, and we must now return to the regions of religion, which can still furnish us with further examples of the widespread existence of virgin-birth stories.

The Concept of a Man-God

The idea of a man-god born of a virgin was conceived so early in the history of mankind that it was carried into America in that remote age when men first migrated into that continent.

Huitzilopotchli, the god of war and chief deity of the ancient Mexicans, was said to have been miraculously conceived by a virgin. His mother, a mortal woman named Coatlicue, saw a ball of bright-colored feathers floating in the air. She took this ball, placed it in her bosom, and by its touch found herself pregnant. Afterwards she gave birth to the god, who entered the world fully armed.

The detail about the war-god or hero being born fully armed is common to many myths. We have already noticed the case of Karna, the son of Kunti by the Sun, who was so born.

Athena is the most notable of the gods and goddesses who entered this world fully armed. Regarding her it was related that she sprang from the head of Zeus, which had been cleft by Prometheus, or, as others said, by Hephaestus.

The detail about the impregnation by touching the brightly colored feathers also has many parallels, notably the case of Juno who, on being touched by a flower — or, as some said, by the help of the goddess Flora — conceived the war-god Mars.

There is the Latin version of the still older Greek myth according to which Here, “without being united in love” — “without intercourse with the other sex” — gave birth to Hephaestos, and conceived Ares by the touch of a flower. Of this goddess Here it was said that after losing her virginity by marriage with Zeus she recovered it annually by bathing in the spring of Canathus.

It is curious to meet this poetical fantasy again in regions as far afield as the South Pacific Ocean and Eastern Asia:

In Tahiti the goddess Hina is believed to have conceived by passing under the shadow of a leaf which the god shook.

In China it was said that virgins sometimes conceived children by the mere act of smelling roses.

The Indians of the Queen Charlotte Islands in Canada, tell a story about a certain chiefs daughter who conceived by accidentally swallowing a leaf as she drank a draught of water. This leaf was really a raven who had assumed this disguise in order to gain admittance to the chiefs house; and so, nine months later, the young woman gave birth to a child who was really the raven in human form.

It is therefore apparent, either spontaneously or through some source which cannot now be traced, that the inhabitants of America — as well as of other places remote from those which we first considered — had formed or inherited the idea that gods were born of virgins. They also believed that divine beings (including in that term the animal ancestors of totem worshippers), though born of mortal women, could not be conceived in the normal human manner.

Possibly such an idea arises necessarily and naturally from a belief in a god who walks upon earth as a man. The resemblance of minor details in the European and the American stories makes it probable that the myths all come from the same pre-historic Asiatic source.

In other parts of the North American continent the virgin-birth story takes a different form — one of great interest, because it has some very curious resemblances to the Christian story, though these stories must have developed quite independently:

“The North American Indians have many traditions of a disobedient virgin who gives birth, by magical Impregnation, to a being who at an early age develops the characteristics of a miracle worker….the manifestation of altruism on the part of the hero personage in behalf of human beings, the destruction of existing monsters and personified evils….and finally….the departure of the hero to another world, after leaving his promise to return again in some future time of need to benefit his people.”

While all this may differ in unimportant mythological details from the Gospel stories of the Virgin Birth, it corresponds remarkably closely with what we find in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.

Travelling further afield, we still find the idea of gods living upon earth; but the conceptions are more primitive and should be classified somewhere between the animism theory of spirits inhabiting inanimate objects and the anthropomorphic doctrine of gods like men:

At the present day in Samoa , men believe that their gods are incarnate in their sacred animals; and doubtless in Egypt and in India similar beliefs preceded the doctrine that the gods had ever become incarnate in men.

We cannot tell how long ago it was that this idea of the miraculous conception of a god was first formed, but it was certainly formulated in pre-historic times since it can be found in the very earliest historical records.

In the very ancient Cretan religion, which flourished before the days of Greek civilization, the chief goddess who was worshipped had, as a youthful companion, a young god who was said to be her immaculately conceived son. The goddess herself was spoken of as a virgin.

Again, in some of the numerous ancient forms of phallic worship, virgins were deflowered by a priapus made of stone or some other hard material; and in one of the legends connected with this custom a semi-divine person, Ocrisia, was said to have been conceived by this method.

Although we do not agree with the views of those who trace all myth motives to phallic or kindred origins, there is no doubt about the great antiquity of phallic worship, or of its widespread nature. But there are other possible sources to be explored if we desire to embark upon the hopeless search for beginnings.

Some people have argued that the universal myths of semi-civilized mankind all have their remote origins in astronomical events, or are derived from the names of the constellations. Therefore, when the sun began the new year in the constellation Virgo, his birth on December 25 in each year was greeted by his worshippers with the cry, “The Virgin hath brought forth.” Today most “Christians” celebrate the Messiah's birth on this date. The constellation was “the celestial virgin,” and the title “celestial virgin” was sometimes given to Juno, and to Cybele, “the mother of all the gods.”

Possibly, perhaps probably, allegorical explanations of astronomical phenomena were one of the sources from which some myths were derived. Doubtless there were other sources as well, and the myths as we know them were gradually evolved from a very varied ancestry. Even if we were able to trace the descent of a myth in detail over a number of ages, we would not necessarily learn much. Characteristics must have been inherited through maternal and more remote ma

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 17 2012,15:52)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2012,08:18) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 16 2012,20:44) Mike, I do believe in the entire so-called “New Testament”. Oh. Then you DO believe these two scriptures? Matthew 1 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Luke 1 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” Mike, Listen up Mike! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR PERVERSION OF SCRIPTURE! Do you believe in the entire so-called “New Testament”? If so, then you believe in the following passage, right?: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (1 John 5:7-8).

In what way did I “pervert” the scriptures I just posted from the NIV?

Those extra words in 1 John 5:7 are not scripture, Frank. It is clear to all that they exist in NO ms that dates to before the 14th century. It has been concluded by all scholars, Trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike, that those words were added by a scribe, and are NOT a part of John's letter.

Do you have evidence that the scriptures I quoted above are mistranslated as they are? Or that those words were later added by a scribe?

If not, then stop posting miles of crap, and instead post ONLY the little section that might possibly address these scriptures I'm asking you about.

Or better yet, man up and defend your claim with your own words, showing me how the scriptures I quoted aren't teaching of a virgin birth.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Even if we were able to trace the descent of a myth in detail over a number of ages, we would not necessarily learn much. Characteristics must have been inherited through maternal and more remote matronly influences. And this analogy rather under-estimates than over-estimates our difficulties — the variety and complexity of mythology being extraordinarily great.

Many Virgin Goddesses

By the time that Greek mythology had reached the earliest stage that has survived for our study, we find that there is already a bewildering array of virgin goddesses.

Many of these goddesses were eventually identified with each other, and said to be merely the same person under different names; but others always remained distinct.

When we come to Roman times we meet with many new names of goddess mothers, some of which are undoubtedly synonyms for the earlier Greek divinities, though others are distinct from them. Some of these were virgin mothers of mortals; others were ordinary mothers of the immortals.

Among these Greek and Roman names — of which several are really synonymous — are Artemis, Iphigenia, Athena, Pallas, Here, Juno, Agdistis, Cybele, and Rhea. The last-named is identifiable with Agdistis and with Cybele, and was known as “The Mother of Zeus,” “The Mother of the Gods,” and “The Great Mother.”

We need not consider here the details of the myths connected with such goddesses we have not already referred to, since it is with human mothers of “God” that we are now more concerned with. We have already noted how familiar the ancients were with miraculous birth stories.

It is not necessary in this brief survey of the best-known miraculous birth stories, to refer to the births of demi-gods and mortal heroes from mortal women and gods — or from goddesses and mortal men — where such births were not miraculous in any other respect than as being the result of a union between a mortal and an immortal.

But the fact that this title of “The Mother of God,” so familiar to the pagans, was transferred to the Messiah's mother Mary should not be overlooked. When in later years Catholics began to worship Mary as “The Mother of God,” it caused great scandal among those (many of them devout Christians but convinced monotheists) to whom the notion of God having a human mother, or indeed a mother of any kind, was most abhorrent.

As civilization advanced, the new “Mother of God” was pictured as a more refined being than the old “Mother of the gods.”

Mary, the new conception, was a pure and refined virgin; Cybele, the old conception, had been looked upon as an emblem of fertility, and sometimes represented in sculpture as having teats as numerous as those of a bitch or of an old sow.

The notions of a coarser age were also illustrated in some of the statues of Isis which represented the virgin mother of Horus wearing a sistrum — an article somewhat similar to that afterwards known as a “ceinture de chastete” — as a symbol of her perpetual virginity.

The art of a more refined age returned to the style of sculpture which had been used to represent the ancient Chaldean virgin goddess and her child. In the simpler statues of Isis and her child many of these figures — as well as of the ceremonies and ideas connected with these ancient pagan goddesses — were transferred to the new cult of the Virgin Mary. The conquered absorbed the conqueror: Christianity became permeated by Paganism. And this in despite of the attempts frequently made to formulate the Incarnation doctrine in metaphysical terms.

Spiritual Conception?

The pagan tales of mortal women being visited by gods made no pretence that the progeny of such unions were conceived by any other than the ordinary physical process. On the other hand, however, the Christian theologians sometimes attempted to show that, though they used physiological terms, they were really speaking of a spiritual process. These attempts were, as must be the case when men use one set of words to imply another set of opinions, doomed to failure. The pagan tales described conceivable, though incredible, miracles; while such Christian apologists described a process which cannot be conceived, being not only miraculous, but indescribable in any terms which are not self contradictory.

The conception of a living creature is brought about by the conjunction of a spermatozoon with an ovum. If a living creature owes its origin to any other process, that origin may or may not be miraculous — but it certainly is not a conception. The same word is used for the mental conception of an abstract idea and for the physical conception of an embryo, but it is used in an entirely different sense. A further miracle is certainly required if men are ever to be enabled to understand how those processes — the mental conception and the physical conception — could have been combined. Men may be prepared to believe that a human embryo has once been formed in a woman's womb without any male assistance. That may be comprehensible, though to most people it is incredible. Men may be prepared to believe that a god miraculously conceived in his mind a being of real flesh and blood. That may, to some people, appear credible, though incomprehensible. A combination of the two processes is, however, not only incredible, but also incomprehensible.

This, however, is what the Christian theologians attempted. On the one hand, the virgin birth story, as known to the pagans, had been introduced into their story; and, on the other hand, the Gnostic doctrine (that the Logos, an emanation from the Supreme Mind, had become flesh and blood) was also part of their story. They tried to combine the two conceptions, the mental and the physical. The spirit of God had, so they said, fertilized Mary. The doctrine retains, or adds to, the coarseness of the pagan myths — while at the same time substituting for the simple physiological process of the latter an incomprehensible process.

The theologians found themselves in a dilemma. Since they desired to retain the very popular virgin birth doctrine, they set aside considerations of its incongruity with their other doctrines — even if they fully appreciated those considerations. They were not men of a scientific habit of thought. They should have been far better informed about physiology than were the men of pre-historic days, among whom all the curious stories which we have already noted originated.

The Problems With the New Testament

Notes James Still: “Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous Virgin-Birth of the Messiah. Also, many…Christian denominations have either quietly purged this curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and the Messiah's Virgin Birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people” (Origins of the Virgin Birth Myth).

There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were — like the present Gospel of Mark — WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling.

It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative — unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story. Writes Barrie Wilson —

“…they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking. So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus 'preexisted' his human form in any fashion…He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah b
ecause God judged him more righteous than any other person” (How Jesus Became Christian, St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 2008, p. 100).

However, a conscientious “Seeker of Truth” can still spiritually discern most of the truth from the highly biased translations of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that have come down to us. The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites — followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine “the Great.”
SOURCE

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Swaddling Clothes and the Virgin Birth!

John D. Keyser

“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7).

“And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).

It is well known that most people interpret the two verses above as referring to the clothing new-born babies wear today, i.e. the bundling of a new-born baby.

I, myself, did not understand the true interpretation of the word “swaddled” as used in the Middle East in times gone by. I ignorantly accepted these verses to mean the baby was bundled up in a blanket or other clothes. It was not until fairly recently that I stumbled across the word “swaddled” in a church booklet that clearly explained the meaning of the word through 1st-century Jewish eyes. With this in mind, let's take a look at the birth of the male-child Yeshua the Messiah.

Before we go into the Scriptural and historical understanding of this custom that was practiced by the majority of Semites — including the Jews — we need to know what being “swaddled” meant to them. In Jewish marriages, one of the greatest gifts that could be bestowed upon them was to have children — and especially to have sons. This is because the Jews awaited the coming of their Messiah, and every Jewish family lived in the hope that their son would be that promised Messiah. Therefore, children were truly considered to be the “salt of the earth.” Following is the procedure of a new-born baby being “swaddled.”

A new-born child is not clothed, but “swaddled.” The word “clothes” found in the old King James Bible, and other versions, is misleading to the neophyte Bible student. The word “clothes” in these verses should have read in a “swaddling band,” as it is referred to in Job 38:9 — “When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it.”

Some versions of the Bible have “swaddling cloths” (without the “e”), which is a better way of translating it. However, “swaddling band” is the correct translation.

What exactly was a “swaddling band”? It was made from linen or cotton material and was five to six yards long (15-18 feet) we are told, and the width of the band was from four to five inches. Salt was pulverized by the mid-wife until it was in the form of a fine powder. When the baby was born, the mid-wife first washed the baby in water, then a piece of cloth about a square yard in size, was laid out and the baby placed on it in a diagonal position. As the custom was, the baby's body was sprinkled and gently rubbed with the finely powdered salt.

Swaddled infants did not have the free movement of their arms and legs. The legs were placed closely together and then the baby's arms were placed at its sides and the piece of swaddled cloth was folded over the baby's feet and arms. Then the swaddle band was wrapped from under the baby's chin, over the forehead and wrapped around and around the infant all the way down to the ankles. When the baby was finished being wrapped in the swaddling band, it had all the appearance of a mummy. It is not certain from the Bible whether a mid-wife did the swaddling in the Messiah's case, or whether Mary did it herself. Either way, the infant Yeshua would have been swaddled.

Now we come to the main reason for explaining the Middle Eastern custom of swaddling. Most Christian churches — including the Churches of YEHOVAH God — claim that Joseph was not the legitimate husband of Mary, and that he lived with her in celibacy. Another erroneous story is that Joseph was not the legitimate biological father of the Messiah, but a step-father — and that the Messiah's brothers and sisters were from an earlier marriage of Joseph. These — and other equally fabricated stories — have no backing scripturally or historically, and are used to deceive people into believing falsehoods of the true “nativity” story.

From the book The Syrian Christ, by Abraham Mitre Rihbany, we read the following regarding swaddling —

And in describing such oriental customs it may be significant to point out that, in certain localities in Syria, to say to a person that he was “NOT SALTED” upon birth is to invite trouble, only a “benduq,” (bastard, an illegitimate child) or the child of a unrecognized father is so neglected.

Yeshua's father was known, and he was Joseph, his Bethlehemite father. This is why Yeshua was swaddled in the oriental (Middle Eastern) custom — because his father was known, making him a legitimate child. We read in Matthew 1:16 and Luke 2:48:

And Jacob BEGOT Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

So when they saw him [Yeshua] they were amazed; and his mother said to him [Yeshua], “Son, why have you done this to us? Look, your FATHER and I have sought you anxiously.”

Also, in Matthew 13:55 —

“Is this not THE CARPENTER'S [JOSEPH'S] son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?”

Critics will still probably argue, “We have read about the Messiah being swaddled in scripture, but how can we be sure about the customs of swaddling bands and being salted, and that these things point to a recognized father when it has been shown to us only through the sayings of Orientals that hold to these traditions?”

The answer is: By the very people themselves who hold to this tradition. People from the Middle East have been observing this custom since before the time of the Messiah. Also, we have further proof, from the Bible, of the custom existing back to the time of Ezekiel the prophet. When YEHOVAH God instructed Ezekiel to speak to Jerusalem about all of her abominations, the city is presented figuratively as a foundling child (an infant of unknown parentage) Notice!

“Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations…As for your nativity [birth], on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; YOU WERE NOT RUBBED WITH SALT nor swathed in swaddling cloths…No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born” (Ezekiel 16:2, 4, 5).

Israel and Jerusalem, in those days of their abominations, were considered as HAVING NO FATHER because of their disobedience to YEHOVAH God. As a result, Jerusalem was pictured as an unswaddled foundling child cast out into a field. Therefore, this provides scriptural proof of what the custom of swaddling was among the Jews. As we have read in the Bible, Yeshua's father was well known as being his NATURAL FATHER, therefore Yeshua was swaddled in conformity with the custom of an infant of which BOTH parents were known among relatives and friends.

“Swaddled” is just one of many subjects that prove, without a doubt, that Mary's husband Joseph was the legitimate father of Yeshua the Messiah. It should be remembered that not to know the legitimate father of a child is to have that child known as a benduq (a bastard) which would have prevented having the child swaddled. Clearly, the virgin birth did not take place and Yeshua's father was Joseph — NOT the holy spirit of YEHOVAH God!
SOURCE

[Author]

Posts