- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Gollamudi,
I will answer this question according to what little I know.
Question of unknown origin reads:
Quote The virgin birth of Jesus: Fact or fable?
We have two accounts of Jesus birth and genealogy in scripture. One is the book of Matthew, which is reportedly written by a Jew, and the other the book of Luke, which is reportedly written by a Gentile.
Of those two accounts Matthew quotes scripture in a way that is not consistent with Hellenistic reasoning that most people including modern Jews use. His reasoning seems to be based on the idea that you get when you read scripture and feel that scripture applies to you even though it is obviously addressed to another people and event. This is similar to the reasoning used in Hebrews another book that is rumored to be addressed to the Jewish people of the First Century. As far as I know Luke does not use that type of reasoning. I mention this only because it can be confusing to those that are ignorant or choose to disregard the argument I just advanced.
Now let’s assume that the authors of both Matthew and Luke are reliable and the versions we have are their actual words. If we take that as a given then I believe the evidence in Matthew tells us Matthew is speaking of the events of Jesus’ birth from Joseph’s point of view. The evidence I put forth to support that premise is that the genealogy in Matthew is Joseph’s. In addition if we read that an angel came to Joseph to defend Mary but we do not read the account of the angel that came to Mary telling her she would me the mother of the Messiah. In Matthew 2 once again we have an account of an angel appearing to Joseph to warn him to flee to Egypt. At the end of Matthew 2 an angel appears to Joseph once more to tell him to return to Israel The only event in the two chapters of the account of Jesus’ birth that might be Mary’s is the story of the wise men.
In these two chapters I wish to point you to the genealogy of Joseph who was said to be Jesus’ father. In this genealogy we find that Joseph is Jehoiachin, about whom God stated his sons would never sit on the throne of David. So if Jesus a descendant of Jehoiachin then he can never be the Anointed One. On the other hand a virgin birth would mean he was not the literal descendant of Jehoiachin and thus he can and is the Messiah.
So the question is should we remove the whole first two chapters of Matthew as false scripture without any evidence to back that conclusion up or should we retain them because we hope that God has kept the scripture we have relative pure. If we do the later then it follows that according to Joseph, Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived and gave birth to Jesus.
Hi Irene,
There's a very logical explanation to that verse, and it all comes together when the misunderstanding the Biblical usage of the word “know”. I used to think of this term (that is, outside of its Biblical usage as most people do) to mean simply to have sex with.
Looking at its Biblcial usage, however, imparts more insight. The following verses give proof that “to know” means more than just sexual activity. Consider these:
Genesis 4:4: “… And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain.”
Genesis 4:17: And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch”
Genesis 4:25: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son and called his name Seth”
The word “knew” is used in these verses to refer to sexual intercourse that results in conception.
Take a look at this one….. Genesis 19:8: “Behold now, I [Lot], have two daughters which have not known man… And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters….”
You see, Lot's sons-in-law were husbands to his daughters; these men obviously had had sexual relations with them, but the daughters had not conceived by them. Therefore, it could be said that these daughters of Lot had not “known” man.
This same truth can be seen in the record of Hannah, who had been barren for a while while married to Elkanah. Take a look at I Samuel 1:19, 20.
Therefore, the record of Matthew is simply saying that Mary had not known Joseph (to the point of conception) until after the birth of Jesus. (They did have other children)
Peace and love, Patrick
Quote (glad tidings @ Oct. 10 2009,22:38) Hi Irene, There's a very logical explanation to that verse, and it all comes together when the misunderstanding the Biblical usage of the word “know”. I used to think of this term (that is, outside of its Biblical usage as most people do) to mean simply to have sex with.
Looking at its Biblcial usage, however, imparts more insight. The following verses give proof that “to know” means more than just sexual activity. Consider these:
Genesis 4:4: “… And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain.”
Genesis 4:17: And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch”
Genesis 4:25: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son and called his name Seth”
The word “knew” is used in these verses to refer to sexual intercourse that results in conception.
Take a look at this one….. Genesis 19:8: “Behold now, I [Lot], have two daughters which have not known man… And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters….”
You see, Lot's sons-in-law were husbands to his daughters; these men obviously had had sexual relations with them, but the daughters had not conceived by them. Therefore, it could be said that these daughters of Lot had not “known” man.
This same truth can be seen in the record of Hannah, who had been barren for a while while married to Elkanah. Take a look at I Samuel 1:19, 20.
Therefore, the record of Matthew is simply saying that Mary had not known Joseph (to the point of conception) until after the birth of Jesus. (They did have other children)
Peace and love, Patrick
O.K. even if it said that She would be conceived with Child She still would have to have sex first. Also some Orthodox Catholics do not have sex unless they want to conceive a Baby. So it could really go both ways IMO
Thank you though it all is possible.
Peace an Love IreneHi GT,
Know does not mean conceive.
Conception is also of God's control.Mary had other children[?6] but was a virgin till Jesus was born.
Hi NIck,
In view of your last post, how could it be said that Jesus Christ was the last Adam (as clearly stated in I Corinthians 15:45,)? Also, if what you are inferring is true, Jesus inherited a sin nature from his birth because he would have inherited “the image of Adam” like the rest mankind (there's a marked contrast between the heads of two separate races. Adam was the head of the human race; Christ is the head of the regenerated “new creation” race. Consider the following: “as in Adam, all die, even so, in Christ all shall be made alive”.
I do not believe the scriptures teach that Jesus was God in the flesh, but I think the scriptures give abundant evidence that Jesus was different than the rest of the human race from the time he was born.
May I encourage you to revist Luke 1:35 with prayer and consideration? …”and the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Break your Interlinear or Septuagint references out – you are an avid workman, aren't you – and consider that this term “over shadow thee” could be pertaining to the imaginery of an animal (male) “overshadowing (being on top of) the female during sexual intercourse.
Gabriel was giving Mary very graphic imagery in relating how she would conceive (having never “known” a man_). God would supernaturally create life in her womb, and it would all come about in a manner analogous to human pro-creation.
Nick, did you really read and consider my last post? Obviously she wouldn't have been a virgin on the day that Jesus was born if the point I made in my last post were true. May I encourage you to read and consider it again?
Grace & peace, Patrick
Hi GT,
We who are of the first Adam, living by the spirit given to him in the garden, follow Jesus becoming sons by rebirth of water and the Spirit.
The new Adam shares the Spirit of God from the Jordan and we can be baptized into his death and resurrection becoming adopted sons of God.[rom6]
Jesus is the firstborn of the dead, the first of the new creation plan of God where all who obey, come to be united with God in Jesus, one in the Spirit of God.Hi GT,
Jesus was also conceived in Mary of God by the Spirit of God's overshadowing but was not different as a man from any other man[Is 53]
His true Father was with him [Acts 10]teaching and parenting him firmly [Heb 12] so that he he never sinned and fulfilled the Law perfectly being a fit vessel for his anointing.
He was recognised as the Christ from the moment of his birth by some but till the age of 30 but those who knew him as of the family of Joseph were amazed at what happened after his anointing.
To ensure no argument could be made that Joseph was the true father rather than the adoptive one scripture makes it very plain that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary till after Jesus was born.GT…….The word (KNOW) simply means to have a (intimate) relationship with. This can apply to men and women as well as (KNOWLEDGE) GOD forbid Adam and Eve from having this (intimate) relationship with the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because that meant they would have to engage into the very act of involvement with it, and of course The Evil part would bring death on them. God could have told them “about” good and evil, but first hand experience is what they wanted and is what they got. There is an old saying “experience is the best teacher” I believe that is true we gain wisdom by experience both good and evil, Eve was not that wrong and I believe that is why Adam went along with Her, and Notice there eyes were opened after entering into a intimate relationship with good and evil. Even GOD himself said “Look man has become like us (KNOWING) Good and Evil. I believe it all was in GOD'S plan all along for man to have intimate relationships with Good and Evil. It does produce wisdom in US. But GOD did forewarn man of what he was in for. IMO
gene
Adam…………> good post from a Jewish perspective you have brought out lots of good points, I also think Kerwin has also , Adam remember a Adoption is in the Jewish mindset the same as a berth Child, as Far as inheritance of position as well as estate. Here is something else i haven't heard discussed and that is Mary was a Cousin to Martha the wife of the High Priest and Jesus was a cousin to John the Baptist also, this may establish a Priestly line, because Levities were prohibited from marring anyone outside their tribe (AS I RECALL). So there was definitely some priest linage there also in Jesus. Interesting Discussion.
peace and love to you and yours Adam ………………gene
Hi Nick,
I wasn't saying that Jesus was different from any other man other than the fact that he did not start out in life with a sin nature (as all of us have).
He was human in every way, shape and form and could be tempted with evil just as Adam was tempted.
Pat
Quote (glad tidings @ Oct. 10 2009,03:17) Gallamudi- You surprise me. In readiing some of you earlier posts, you seemed as if you were humbly seeking an answer to this question. It seems that now, because you haven't received an answer, you're taking a hard line stance on this topic. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
Which parts of the Bible are true, and which are fabricated lies? Perhaps you should post these so that I scissor out the sections of scripture that are true from the ones that are missleading. Wait a minute, before doing that perhaps we should take a peek at II Peter 1:21.
I would agree that there are verses in the Biblical text that need research to ferret out the truth, but it seems that because you don't have a “fast food” answer to a few verses of scripture in Matthew and Luke, you're willing to relegate a Biblical concept (which, understood in its proper light, has a great bearing on the vallidity of several other verses) to a fictitious lie.
So once again, which verses relating to the birth record of Jesus can we keep, and which ones do we toss? Aside from the obvious verses inferred by your posts, do we also toss out Luke 1:34 and 35? and Matthew 1:22-25 along with Isaiah 7:13-15? I guess while we are at it, we might as well throw the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:16 (insight given to Peter by direct revelation from The Father) out the window as well.
Isn't this getting a bit silly? May I suggest taking a look at and considering the research work listed in the following link before posting any more of your ideas on this topic?
Patrick
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-our-promised-seed/dp/0910068429
Yes you are right in judging me. Our N.T has lot of inconsistencies which can not be reconcilled with any permutations and combnations as you can. Here is one example for that taken from the following linkhttp://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/10/troubling_incon.html
6. Other Minor Discrepancies Raise Additional Questions About How Much the New Testament Authors Really Knew
• Matthew 1.2-17 and Luke 3.23-38 give two considerably-inconsistent genealogies for Jesus. The most obvious difficulty is Joseph's father: Was Joseph born of Jacob (says Matthew), or Heli (says Luke)?
• Luke describes Joseph and Mary as residents of Nazareth [Lk 1.26]. He recounts the familiar story of their journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and their eventual return to Nazareth [Lk 2.1-39]. Matthew, on the other hand, presents us with a hair-raising tale of danger and narrow escapes. He is silent about Joseph and Mary's hometown, saying only that Jesus was born in Bethelem of Judea [Mt 2.1]. But then he has Joseph fleeing with the Holy Family to Egypt, to escape from Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents [Mt 2.13-18]. After Herod dies, according to Matthew, Joseph “went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth” (Mt 2.19-23]. Matthew thus implies that the Holy Family settled in Nazareth for the first time after the return from Egypt, directly contradicting the Lucan account.
• According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate a Passover meal, following which Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified [Mt 26.17-21; Mk 14.12-18; Lk 22.7-15]. According to the Fourth Gospel, however, Jesus was executed on the day of Preparation for the Passover [Jn 19.31]. Some theologians speculate that the author of the Fourth Gospel wanted to portray Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed for the new Passover. Was this merely literary license? (For other possible explanations of this discrepancy and the problems associated therewith, see this Web site.)
The link you have given in your post is about a book which is biased by Christian dogma. I don't want to buy and read it since it is outdated by now.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 10 2009,05:26) Hi GM,
Scripture says Jesus was born of a virgin.
Have you found more reliable sources?
Hi brother Nick,
Which scriptures of Bible says that Jesus was born of Virgin?
It is the Hellenistic writers of Gospel of Matthew or Luke's interpretation not a Jewish interpretations.Quote (Gene @ Oct. 12 2009,06:21) Adam…………> good post from a Jewish perspective you have brought out lots of good points, I also think Kerwin has also , Adam remember a Adoption is in the Jewish mindset the same as a berth Child, as Far as inheritance of position as well as estate. Here is something else i haven't heard discussed and that is Mary was a Cousin to Martha the wife of the High Priest and Jesus was a cousin to John the Baptist also, this may establish a Priestly line, because Levities were prohibited from marring anyone outside their tribe (AS I RECALL). So there was definitely some priest linage there also in Jesus. Interesting Discussion. peace and love to you and yours Adam ………………gene
Hi brother Gene,
Thanks for your appreciation of my post. In fact I am seing virgin birth more critically than ever before because for Jesus being in all respects like us he doesn't need to be born of a virgin. Sine also we don't believe in original sin or pre-exisence. Even I suggest that unitarianism can be more real if they leave out this another myth of virgin birth which was allegedly created by the Gentile/Hellenistic writers like the writers of Matthew and Luke. Adoption and levierate marriage are not at all required if Jesus was true descendent of David and born of normal human parents. God was in Jesus not that he was born of virgin and was not bitten by original sin. No Jew will agree with such Christian biased interpretation.Thank and love to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Oct. 12 2009,20:01) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 10 2009,05:26) Hi GM,
Scripture says Jesus was born of a virgin.
Have you found more reliable sources?
Hi brother Nick,
Which scriptures of Bible says that Jesus was born of Virgin?
It is the Hellenistic writers of Gospel of Matthew or Luke's interpretation not a Jewish interpretations.
Hi GM,
You judge the work of God's Spirit now?
Is that wise?Hi brother Nick,
We can not equate everything written in our N.T as the inspiration of God. Here is how an ex-pastor gives replies to Christian queries.BUT MY NEW TESTAMENT SAYS IT’S A FULFILLED PROPHECY…YOU MEAN ITS NOT?
I can remember my shock the first time a friend of mine, whom I respect very much, mentioned to me that almost all of the many prophecies in the New Testament which are believed to be “fulfilled prophecies by Jesus” were in reality not fulfilled at all! He went on to say that in the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, that the prophecies that are believed by Christians to be “fulfilled” are really not “fulfilled” prophecies after all in spite of what the New Testament and the writer of the Book of Matthew said. At first I could not believe it; surely he was mistaken for at that time in my life my scholarship concerning the Bible was only at an infant state. All I could say was that I had been taught and heard preached that Jesus had fulfilled “what was written” because it said so and that my preacher had said so. After all when reading the New Testament these “thus being fulfilled what the prophet said” passages sure sounded like they had Divine authority and I cold remember reading something like that in the Old Testament before. After being challenged in this way the first thing I did was to look at my center reference in my study Bible and began to look for an Old Testament Scriptural references which would surely prove my friend wrong and my Christian religious belief system correct. As I was looking up my reference my friend said something that would change the course of my life: “But Craig, your Christian Bible is a fraudulent translation of the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures…the Jewish Masoretic Text (the Jewish Old Testament) does not read the same way your Christian Old Testament reads. I remember saying to myself: “Surely he is mistaken or even crazy.” For after all as a Christian Jesus was my “Messiah.” But that was then and now, some sixteen years later after years of hard-nosed dedicated scholarly study, I can no longer say and believe what I did then. I now realize that my friend was right; my Christian Bible was a fraud in many places and I never knew it. But I do now and I wish to inform you of this sad plight in hopes your worship of G-d be no longer be contaminated with idolatry because you own and believe in a forged translation of the Jewish Bible.
As you can imagine this information presented to me by my friend stopped me on a dime. I thought to myself “What evidence does he have to back up such a claim”. Surely, I thought to myself, he could not be correct.
After “growing up in the LORD” for these last 16 years I can say without a doubt that my friend was 100% correct in his assessment of the Christian Bible and its mistranslations. I had be led to believe that my Christian Bible was inspired and infallible since I was a child. I had lived my whole life, up to then, with the notion that my Christian KJV was inspired, infallible, and inerrant. I can remember my shock, my devastation, and my anger as it all settled in over the next few days and years. After a considerable time of intense study into this subject I came to the undeniable conclusion that I had a book that even my Pastors don’t know is altered in hundreds of places. If they did know then never told me. Now understand after 16 years of intense Bible study and after being awakened to this matter I cannot look at my Christian Bible and believe it without searching out the truths for myself. I had to begin a serious investigation of every line and ever precept. It has taken my 16 years to do this, and such results finally led to my resignation as a Pastor of a mega-church in Dallas. I had not been teaching the “truth” and had been associated with the greatest cover-up in the history of mankind. My repentance and tears flowed continually throughout the years as I tried to justify keeping my position as a Pastor. Finally my shame and my knowledge would have me “come out of the unclean thing.” No longer could I justify with my presence a Replacement Religion that opposes the very things that Yeshua both loved, lived, and taught. I have today been able to master from the Jewish Masoretic Texts the problem passages which confront us in the Christian Bible. The rub comes for the Christian in the fact that the vast majority of these “corrupted and falsified and purposefully mistranslated passages” are Messianic in perspective.
Let me say up front that even though I can and will share with you how the Torah, Prophets, and Writings have been literally butchered over the centuries by various Bible translations, and even thought many of these when viewed from the Jewish text, turn out to be non-Messianic prophecies, I still hold a faith and belief that when Messiah comes it most likely will be Yeshua. But I could be wrong. It really does not matter but I am moved by 2000 years of history where this man, for better or worse, has been the center figure in the faith of over 2 billion people. Where there is smoke there is fire. I deal with this issue on this and other websites of this ministry where we look into why the prophecies, the real and true Jewish prophecies, were not fulfilled in the first century. No mater whom the Messiah was to be, they would not have been fulfilled and any Messianic movement was doomed to failure. But at the same time I refuse to “take away or add to the Word of G-d,” the Jewish Masoretic text, in order to create “fulfilled scripture” which makes it look as if Yeshua is the Messiah when the original texts never said the things the New Testament says they did. Many people have “beliefs” about Yeshua, and many varieties of them exist in the world today. Regardless, I want the truth and only the truth about this man. Falsification of Christian Bibles in order to create “fulfillments” about Yeshua that were never true in the first place does neither G-d nor me, or even you , any good.
I HAVE HEARD THIS MY WHOLE LIFE…WHAT ABOUT YOU?
“What are the mathematical odds of any one person fulfilling all of the messianic prophecy? Obviously the scriptures could only have been talking about Jesus.”
On the face of it, this sounds like a good argument. And if you read all of the Christian scriptures, there are lots and lots of “prophecies” that needed to be fulfilled, and, according to your New Testament, Jesus fulfilled every one of those “prophecies” as they appear in the Christian bible. You need to understand that the reason that I put “prophecies” in quotes is that nearly every “prophecy” quoted in the book of Matthew is non-Messianic! Some of them are even made up. Many are “quotes” of non-existing Jewish Scriptures. And the one or two prophecies that are Messianic have been butchered to such a degree that they are untrue to the originals in the Masoretic text or taken out or purposefully taken out of context by the authors of the Christian bible.
Answer for yourself: Why was this done?
Simply said, since the original prophecies in the Jewish Tanakh were not fulfilled by anyone in the first century, then in the selling of Jesus as “the” Messiah to the Gentile nations, who never knew the prophecies in the first place, it was necessary to alter then in order that Jesus of the Gentile Church could “fulfill” them. The unsuspecting and Tanakh deficient Gentiles would never know the difference. This would work for the Biblically ignorant Gentiles but it is an entirely different story with the Jews who were familiar with the Jewish Palestinian Text and could spot the forgery! That is why the LXX (Septuagint) was never accepted by those who could read Hebrew in the first century; they knew better. With the dying out of Hebrew and the Jews only able later to speak Greek then the Greek LXX had to be used. The errors and the purposefully alterations, over time, were not noticed any longer. For those who knew Hebrew and the Palestinian Masoretic Text in the first century it was
impossible to believe in any Jewish Messianic pretender who did not fulfill the prophecies that they had both cherished and looked forward to for over hundreds and thousands of years.WHAT TECHNIQUES WERE USED BY GENTILE CHRISTIANS TO FALSIFY THE JEWISH TEXTS IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLES?
There is a specific structure that is used in the Christian bible that manipulates (sentences) in the Tanakh (Yeshua’s Bible). I will provide an example using contemporary terms.
Let me give you again the mechanics involved in textual manipulation whereby we end up with something different in meaning that the original author intended.
1. Jewish texts and phrases are lifted out of their places in the Hebrew Scriptures and given meanings which, at best, are forced.
2. Preceding many of the prophetic verses which are quoted is the assertion, “What was said through the prophet was thus fulfilled.” In this way the writers of the Christian Scriptures endeavored to show that the Tanakh anticipated and predicted the events recorded in the New Testament and associated with the life of Jesus. In other words, events in his life were back-written and given prophetic authority as it they had been “prophesied.”
3. Those happenings, then, are presented as the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures and are considered proof texts.
4. The techniques employed to establish proof include citation of verses out of context, mistranslation, and misquotation.
5. Sometimes a figurative or poetic phrase is mistaken for a straightforward statement and vice versa.
6. Sometimes sayings of different writers, living in different places, and in different centuries are run together.
7. Often two or more of these methods are used in a single quotation.
8. Often there was never such a prophecy and the reference to one is “made up”. Even if it was a prophecy, it has nothing to do with the Messiah.
There are a dozen “prophecies” in the book of Matthew. In the examples that follow, will see that they all fall into one or more of these none deceptive categories above.
BUT WHY WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN IN THIS MANNER?
The answer is simple. When you have a result that you want to prove, it's a lot easier to start from the end and go backwards. Having a religious belief then you proof text to find passages that support your position, and not finding them or enough of them, then you create them! Again we must understand the Jews will know the difference, but if you are targeting another group, like the non-Jews often hundreds and thousands of miles away, a little deception with the texts will be noticed by no one; except G-d who knows better!Answer for yourself: Do you know what the Jewish Masoretic Text/Palestinian Text is, and do you have one or have you ever read it? Have you ever compared it line upon line whereby the “Messianic passages” are compared to see if they read the same?
Before you say “yes,” since your Christian Bible often says that it is taken from the Masoretic text, you must realize how Bibles are put together. Your Christian Bible is an eclectic text. This is a fancy word meaning the “best manuscripts” were consulted and some were taken from here and others from there. It is more like a collage or a mixture of “best” texts, at least in the mind of the Bible committee which put it together and decided what was “best” depending on their existing denominational religious belief system. Of what I am speaking is the Jewish Tanakh which is faithful to the Jewish Masoretic text from start to finish. The Christian OT cannot make that claim since a knowledgeable comparison will reveal the alterations of which I speak. This is important for this reason: Since every New Testament quote in the New Testament is taken from the corresponding Christian Old Testament, then it is of major importance to the Christian if it can be shown that the Christian Old Testament is not faithful to the Jewish Scriptures!
So when you read or hear a passage from the New Testament and identify it as a “Messianic fulfillment” since you have never owned or read the true uncorrupted Jewish Palestinian Canon or the Jewish Masoretic Text, you are unable to recognize a “misquote, or a mistranslation, or a verse taken completely out of the context intended by the original author! Since lacking such a text that is faithful to the Jewish Masoretic text, the Bible Yeshua both knew and used, and since most Christians today do not have the skills to read Hebrew, then you would never know of these purposeful mistranslations, misquotations, and verses which have been twisted out of their original context.
Since not possessing this knowledge then it is easy to be misled by one who comes to you and shows you a Christian translation of the Jewish Bible or quotes passages in the New Testament supposedly taken accurately from the Jewish Bible or says: “What are the mathematical odds of any one person fulfilling all of the messianic prophecy? Obviously the scriptures could only have been talking about Jesus.”
Hosea 4:6 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, … (KJV)
The unprepared Christian, not knowing any different, is led astray every time. And the other side of this coin is that when you provide the refuting evidence for the supposed “fulfilled prophecy”, most will discount it as “impossible” and fewer still will take the challenge and procure a Jewish Tanakh (Jewish Masoretic Text) and compare the wordings between the Jewish Texts and their Christian Bible to see who’s correct and who’s in error.
Isa 28:10 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (KJV)
If we but followed the admonition of Isaiah the Prophet you would not have this problem, but few study like this. If they only knew the great need for such disciplined study.
So the purpose of these articles that follow is to inform you of this sad situations that exists in Christianity which so few know or understand has happened. We will begin to elaborate on this point by presenting the “prophecies” in the order in which they occur in the book of Matthew along with the evidence which will either prove them to be “fulfilled” or “fraudulent”. You can be the judge and make an intelligent decision once you know the facts from fiction.
Source: http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.com/false_prophecies_no1.htm
Gallamudi,
These are not you arguments and you seem unable to argue on behalf of those whose arguments they are so why should I bother listening to them.
I can and have pointed out the flaws but they are fairly obvious to those who are not ignorant or corrupt.
I advise the ignorant to take a wait and see attitude as things will become clear as they learn more.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote God was in Jesus not that he was born of virgin and was not bitten by original sin. No Jew will agree with such Christian biased interpretation.
Matthew is a Jew.
Gallumundi,
I agree that at times one can get a biased viewpoint from reading dogmatic books. But truth is still truth, and if one is hungry and humbly asks Father to be led into truth, I believe – and know through experience – that He is faithful to answer that type of prayer.
The source of that truth could be a donkey, a little slave girl (as in the record of Naaman) or it could a roughly dressed man like John the Baptist; either way, humility and hunger are the keys. And along this line, is it safe to conclude that truth is ever “old” or “outdated”?
You menttioned the records of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 (the inconsistent geneological data relating to Joseph, Heli, and Jacob). May I exhort you to reconsider them along the lines of this evidence that I was blessed to receive?
The English [KJV] translation from the Greek word ANDRA , which is “husband in Matthew 1:16, is highly questionable. Translation from the Aramaic of Matthew 1:16 (GAVRA) makes a whole lot more sense.
GAVRA means “mighty man”. (The book I mentioned in previous post LIGHT THROUGH AN EASTERN WINDOW, by Bishop K.C. Pillai) gives wonderful insights to this truth. In Eastern culture, a “Gavra” was a father of a household; he was the “mighty man” of the family. A son in a household would not carry this description [see Galatians 4:1]).
The Aramaic translation of the word (which is translated “husband” from the Greek) would be better translated “father” in Matthew 1:16: “and Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is callled Christ.” This reconciles a whole lot of inconsistency with Luke 3: and the record of Heli.
Ferretting this stuff out, one will find that Mary's father was named Joseph, and she happened to have a husband by the same name (two separate men). Therefore, Joseph's father was a man by the name of Jacob just as Matthew 1 16 says. Joseph, the husband of Mary had a father by the name of Heli, just as Luke 3:23 says.
Further proof of the rightness of the translation of the Aramaic word GAVRA to the English word “father” is given in verse 19 of Matthew chapter one. Here, the proper Aramaic word for “husband” (which is BALI , not GAVRA) is rendered in the text : “then Joseph her husband [ Bali ], being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example…”
If that's not enough proof, here's another safeguard YHWH inserted into the text to guard this truth :
The geneology in the gospel of Matthew gives a numerical checklist that YHWH included in order to precisely give the account and validity of Jesus's claim to Messiahship.A summary statement in regards to this geneology begins in verse 17, and it says that there are 14 generations from Abraham to David. Next, it mentions that there are 14 generations from David to the carrying away to Babylon. And finally, there are 14 generations from the carrying away to Babylon to Messiah.
If the Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 were Mary's husband, then one could only account for 13 generations (that is, starting from Salathiel and ending with Jesus). Due to the fact that Joseph (here) is her father, then the geneology goes to 14, just as the Biblical text indicates.
The geneological data listed in Matthew is intended to give Jesus's rightful positon to the throne through Mary, his mother. The descendents from David onwards were the legal candidates to the throne according to I Chronicles 17:11-17 and II Samual 7:12-17.
Grace & peace,
Patrick
Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 12 2009,19:23) glad wrote:Gallamudi-
• According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate a Passover meal, following which Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified [Mt 26.17-21; Mk 14.12-18; Lk 22.7-15]. According to the Fourth Gospel, however, Jesus was executed on the day of Preparation for the Passover [Jn 19.31]. Some theologians speculate that the author of the Fourth Gospel wanted to portray Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed for the new Passover. Was this merely literary license? (For other possible explanations of this discrepancy and the problems associated therewith, see this Web site.)
Adam……..The account can be easily explained, remember a day began at the proceeding evening, So Jesus and His disciples could have eaten this meal together and He could have been killed that same day. Time was kept from evening to evening.peace and love to you and yours………………gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
