Virgin birth

[NickHassan]

Hi GM,
More reliable than you and your friends?
Yes

[gollamudi]

The Virgin Birth dilemma:

Hello, and welcome.

I am going to explain a problem.  This problem has been overlooked for nearly 2000 years, and most people don’t even seem to know that the root issue of their faith is in jeopardy.  Mainstream Christianity is going to be my focus, however- the issue at hand also affects every other New Testament based religion, Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. .  

The problem, is the Virgin Birth.  Most Christians don’t realize that this is a problem, because if confronted, they cannot even tell you where to find the only prooftext for the Virgin Birth (Known hereafter as “VB”).  That is because most Christians, and what I call “Blind Faith” Christians, meaning they were born into a Christian home, or were brought into the “fold” a long time ago, and they simply trusted that the information presented to them was accurate.  Of course that would be the most beneficial way to follow any faith, and you would exert minimal effort in the areas of study and discovery.  Of course it would be easy to just take somebody at their word, and not have any responsibility of your own, religiously.

There are Christians who know exactly what they believe, and they comprise around 15 to 20% of Christianity.  Those individuals can shw you exactly where the VB is, they can show the prooftexts for most if not all the major, or “core”, doctrines.  And if they can’t, they can find the needed information rather quickly, and they can present a stunning arguement.  Those Christians are the ones this issue is being presented to, but all are welcome to try and keep up.

A little about me before I start.  I am 35, and I was born into a Christian home.  I was a Christian until October 29th, 2000.  That is the date that I unknowingly went to a group of people who changed my thinking forever.  They actually did believe in the VB, at the beginning.  It was not until a year later, that the group split in half, due to a very startling discovery, a serious problem with the Virgin Birth.
Where I am today is not at issue here, my current beliefs are not at issue, the issue, reguardless of my current faith, is the problem with the VB.  This problem is so huge, that it cannot be ignored.  There is another issue, that I discovered when I was still a Christian.  My family and friends hated it when I tried to discuss this matter with them, because although they were unwilling to waver in their view, in this instance they had nothing to say, no scripture to read, to validate their position.  My position however, was based on written scripture, and in this case the scripture in question could not be mis-interpreted, or denied, and they knew it.  Their only recourse, was to use “Christian Apologetics”.  That, is a way of giving an answer to a biblical problem, without actually using scripture.  Many times their answer sounds fantastic, but it is just an answer, without scriptural, or doctinal validation.

In this case, the topic was going to church on Sunday.  Without going into any detail, my arguement was what scripture said, their answer was “We go to church on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.”  But that answer, as great as it is, is not a scriptural answer.  And I was not a “blind faith” Christian, my doctrine, everything I believed about God, was litrally based on written scripture.  I had no clue that more than half of my doctrines were based on scripture that wasn’t even scripture!!  More on that later.  The point is, that the Bible says the “Sabbath” is to be practiced on “the 7th day”.  Although we use a “Gregorian” calendar here in America, the actual days of the week are in sink with the ancient Israeli’s days of their week.  For us, is is Sunday, for them, it is 1st day.  For us, it is 12am to 12am, and that’s Sunday.  For them, it is sunset 7th day (Saturday) through sunset 1st day (Sunday.)

Now onto the real issue.  The VB is the most central doctrine of Christianity, since it literally holds everything else together.  Without it, every other doctrine about Christ becomes irrelevant, and they cannot exist.  If Joseph was Jesus’ father for example, then he couldn’t be “God in the flesh”, because he’d be fully man.  How did he forgive our sins?  Through the Resurrection.  Why did he have to die to forgive our sins?  Because the wages of sin is death.  How did he qualify to be that sacrifice in our place?  He lived a sinless life.  If we are all “born into sin”, then how could he have lived a sinless life?  He’s God.  How is he God?  Through the Holy Spirit, via the VB.  So, without the VB, the rest CAN NOT WORK.  Here’s the problem:

If your faith is based on written scripture, then you know that in Matthew 1(& Luke 1), an angel talks to Mary, and tells her everything is dandy.  Then he talks to Joseph, tells him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, (he found out she was pregnant, and supposedly, knew it wasn’t his, which would be fornication, a death penalty command, if broken, hence, he was afraid to marry her, supposedly.) and the angel also said that what was concieved in her was concieved from the Holy Spirit.  Then, the writer of Matthew steps in, and exclaimes; “These thing took place to fulfill the scripture, for it is written:” The virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name ‘Immanuel’.” ”  If you look it up in any concordance, that passage will be found in Isaiah 7:14.  But the problem is that everyone automatically accepts this fantastic passage, as the prooftext to the VB.  Even though in this case, it is the ONLY prooftext for the VB, and even though in this case the VB isthe MOST important doctrine, since it is literally connected to all others, everyone still chooses to automatically believe.  Even me, when I was a Christian, when I was so maticulous in my beliefs that I HAD to have written scripture to back up each doctrine, for some strange reason, this doctrine was the one acception to the rule, and I didn’t even know it!

Now, I can present a stunning arguement that the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 is wrong, and should be “maiden”, or “young woman”.  But, this is not even the point.  That issue, as incredibly serious as it would be, as big of a problem as that is, that is not the issue I’m going to share.  The real issue, is that most Christians have never even studied Isaiah 7, they have only studied 7:14.  They may have read further than 14 at some point, but since they never read from vs 1, they always seemed to miss the problem.  So right now, stop reading this, and get out your NIV or KingJames, and read Isaiah 7, the whole chapter.

At this point in time, Israel is now Israel, and Judah.  Israel and Syria, (or whatever nation occupied that region then), are attacking Jerusalem, Judah’s capital, but they are unable to succeed.  But, King Ahaz and the people of Judah are afraid for their lives.  (They are shaken as the trees are shaken by the wind.)  So, God sends Isaiah to Ahaz.  Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask a sign from God, so he will know that Isaiah is telling the truth, and that God is with them.  Ahaz refuses, in fear, and Isaiah gives Ahaz a sign from God: “The virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name, ‘Immanuelle’.  AND, he will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the 2 kings you dread will be laid waste.”  That was 14, 15 and 16.

Since the sign is to Ahaz, and since Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, then the kings in question, are 2 kings that AHAZ dreads.  Folks, that means that the king of Israel, and the king of Syria, (or whatever nation that was then), will be destroyed, before Immanuelle knows right from wrong.  How old, approximately, are you when you still don’t know right from wrong?  That would be 1, 2 or three year
s old, possibly a little more depending on the mental state of the child.  However, that would be any age under 14, for a Jewish boy, or an Israeli boy, since the Bar-Mitzvah is a celebration of manhood, and until that age, you are considered innocent.  Whoever Immanuele was, he could NOT have been Jesus, since Jesus was not born until after 700 years into the future!!!  If the 2 kings in question were Israel and Syria, which they were, then Immanuelle was born before Israel was destroyed, and if you read on, it actually explains WHY Immanuelle ate curds and honey.  Immanuelle was not Jesus.  And this was not a “dual prophecy” either, since a dual prophecy is a prophecy in which every aspect of the prophecy is fulfilled twice.  How many aspects of this prophecy were fulfilled in Jesus day?  That’s right, NONE.  Besides, this was NOT, I repeat, NOT, a prophecy.  It was a SIGN, to king Ahaz of Judah.  If Jesus were Immanuelle, then how could it be a sign to Ahaz, since he’d be dead at it’s fulfillment??  Jesus was not Immanuelle.  Also, this was a sign to Ahaz, and although it was “prophetic”, it was not a prophecy.  This was an event God allowed on rare occasion, in order that He could prove a point to the specific person or group that the sign was given to.  Therefore, it does not fit in the category of a prophecy.  Dual prophecy?  Not even possible.

So, if Jesus is not Immanuelle, then the VB has NO prooftext, and since Matthew 1 CLAIMS that it’s the prooftext, then Matthew 1 is either just wrong, OR- someone wanted you to believe in a Virgin Birth.  Who has been in control of all existing New Testament documents for the last 2000 years??  What organization actually “canonized” the New Testament?  Yep- the Vatican.  Where?  ROME.  So, before the Catholic church that existed 2000 years ago meddled in God’s affairs, what was scripture?  The Old Testament.  Could it be, that some form of original Judaism was, and today STILL IS, the truth??  I don’t know, but one thing I do know, Christianity is leading millions of people to believe a lie- the Virgin Birth.

-DSM

 Source: http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/872

[gollamudi]

How the “virgin birth” doctrine weakens Yeshua's claim to being Messiah ?

Disclaimer:
The issue of the “virgin birth” is not, in my opinion, of a redemptive (affecting our redemption) nature.  I address it primarily because many utilize it as “proof” that Messiah is God.  However, there are many sincere seekers of truth that realize Messiah is NOT God yet still believe in the virgin birth.  I consider such people to be worshippers of the TRUE God (vs. those that promote a “God in the flesh” Messiah), and we enjoy full fellowship together even though we may disagree on this particular issue.  Nevertheless, I consider it my duty as I strive to serve the ONE and ONLY God to present my opinion since I feel the virgin birth concept is a pagan derived fabrication that was “edited” into the Messianic writings (New Testament) by scribes that were steeped in the mystery Babylon religion.

Also, let me be clear in stating that one of my primary objectives is to indeed show that the “virgin” birth is NOT a redemptive issue, that is it does NOT decide the eternal fate of an individual.  The New Testament very clearly does not present, as necessary for salvation, that one must accept (or deny) the virgin birth. Even the most forceful proponents of the literal virgin birth must admit, unless they are dishonest, that the virgin birth issue is not presented in the New Testament as a doctrine that determines one's eternal destiny.  In other words, study the issue and believe as you wish, knowing your sincere opinion will not influence your eternal life.  It is NOWHERE stated in the New Testament that a person must accept the “virgin birth” in order to obtain eternal life.  Anyone who states otherwise can be easily proven wrong.

A primary objective of this article can be summed up by the following, which appears later in this discussion and which I felt useful to state to help define my reasons for composing this article.

IF 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 astounding miracle and a subject of frequent discussion! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it!  This fact alone makes its actual occurrence unlikely.

It is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the epistles.
It is NEVER mentioned by Yeshua (jesus) the Messiah.
It is NEVER mentioned in ANY recorded presentations of the “gospel” in Acts or the epistles.
It is NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE as part of a necessary belief a person must accept!  EVER!
The ONLY place it is mentioned, or even hinted at, is in the alleged (and contradictory) birth accounts of Matthew and Luke!
Yet Christianity, counterfeit Messianism, and many monotheistic Messianics consider it a crucial doctrine even though Scripture most certainly shows it to NOT be crucial!
The myth of the “virgin birth” of Messiah is a classic example of trying to “fit a square peg in a round hole.”  In this case the “square peg” is inaccurate traditional Christian doctrine (hereditary sin, God incarnate, Mary the “mother of God,” etc.) and the “round hole” is Scriptural truth.  Of course a square peg with a length/width dimension equal to the diameter of a round hole will never fit unless the round hole is destroyed to force a fit.  A “forced fit” is exactly what is often done by traditional Constantinian Christian leaders as they shred Scriptural context and utilize a “cut-and-paste” tactic in their vain attempts to force-fit many of their doctrines into Scripture.  Just as the round hole is ripped and distorted into an unrecognizable mess, so Scripture is likewise distorted by Christian apologists.

Some people sincerely feel that I practice hypocrisy when I chastise others for rejecting the teachings of the New Testament even as I question the few passages of the New Testament found in Matthew and Luke that appear to advance the notion of a “virgin” birth.  I understand their opinion but feel they are wrong for the following reasons:

The virgin birth is proven by its lack of emphasis in the New Testament, which I discuss later, to be a trivial issue.  Actually, most of the opposition from those accusing me of being hypocritical is due to their refusal to admit this unambiguous fact.  They simply refuse to admit the trivial, non-redemptive nature and non-emphasis given the “virgin” birth in New Testament.  Their emotional attachment to the “virgin” aspect of Messiah's birth prevents them from practicing clear, unbiased thinking.  They prove by their fixation on the “virgin” aspect that they actually DO view it as important or redemptive and are simply irritated by the fact that they cannot substantiate its importance from Scripture.  It is that irritation they possess that often motivates them to attack the many who feel as I do about this issue.

The number of verses that actually refer in an unambiguous way to a “virgin” birth, a birth without normal sexual intercourse, are very few in number.  Though I haven't counted them.  I suspect there are less than five.  Sure, there are more than five that refer to the birth of Messiah, but when the specific verses supporting a CLEAR “virgin” birth are highlighted among those passages they are shown to represent a tiny fraction of the overall number of “birth” passages.
Therefore, even if I “reject” those verses, the actual number being “rejected” can probably be counted on one hand.

Closely associated to the last point is the fact that the primary issue of importance that the New Testament gospel authors of Matthew and Luke wished to convey in their birth accounts is that Yeshua is a descendent of King David.  I discuss that in this article and prove that a “virgin” birth seriously jeopardizes that necessary ingredient that must be part of Messiah's resume.  Therefore, “virgin” birth proponents unwittingly weaken Yeshua's claim to be Messiah.

It is more accurate to say I “question” or am suspicious of the origins of the “virgin” passages than it is to say I outright reject them.  And my suspicions are strongly supported, as you will see in the material presented in this article.

Equating sincere rejection or suspicions about the origins of the virgin birth passages with other doctrines of the New Testament that are clearly redemptive or relevant to salvation is unwise and, I feel, betrays an effort to escalate this issue to a level it does not deserve.  This is done by ALL those who disagree with me and in every case the imbalance in their arguments is very transparent to anyone who sincerely considers the issue.  It is a gross misrepresentation of the New Testament to claim the “virgin” aspect is as crucial as other issues to which it is often listed as equal in importance from the New Testament writings.  Again, the “virgin” birth is an issue that is NEVER mentioned again in the New Testament or listed among the “salvation” relevant issues by any writer, including Matthew and Luke.  Even if it is true, it still is rather trivial, and I would still view it as trivial, which is why I have no real disagreement with “virgin” birth proponents unless they wrongly use it to prove Messiah is “God in the flesh” or, implicit in such false teachings, to substantiate “hereditary sin.”

Similar to the last point, sometimes other rarely mentioned issues, which ARE clearly redemptive and more crucial than the “virgin” birth, are put forth to combat my rejection of the virgin birth.  The intent is to show that just because an issue is rarely mentioned does not mean it is trivial.  I fully agree with the premise of such an argument; however, it is always the case that the other rarely discussed issues in the New Testament used in such arguments against my position are known by those arguing them to be important and are, therefore, specifically chosen in such a way so as to confuse the issue.  They painstakingly search for such “gotchas” knowing their
comparisons are a bit deceitful.

This method of argument used by “virgin” promoters, just like the other points, especially point number 5, is a “red herring,” a type of trickery thrown into the discussion by people who know their arguments are otherwise very weak.  Such methods commonly used by “virgin” birth promoters represent a classic case of “comparing apples to oranges,” and I personally feel such methods of debate are disingenuous.

Finally, it is a certain FACT that there is a tiny amount of textual corruption in the New Testament.  Textual corruption is not the same thing as translation errors. Textual corruption, as I define it, refers to verses or individual words that were ADDED by misguided scribes as they copied the copies of the copies of the copies … of the original manuscripts.  It also refers to the probable DELETION or CHANGING of passages in the original manuscripts.  I firmly and irrevocably believe that such corruption represents a tiny, almost negligible fraction of the overall number of New Testament passages and that the common counter-missionary accusations of New Testament forgery are blatantly false and demonic.  Therefore, the idea that the handful of verses that refer to Messiah's “virgin” birth may be corrupt is not wildly imaginative.  It is VERY possible, and I believe probable, that to foster the pagan concept of a “virgin” birth early church scribes “tweaked” the manuscripts to advance their bias.

Corruption is rather easily recognized by noting the inconsistency a particular verse shows relative to the rest of Scripture or to the rather clear spiritual intent (circumcision for instance) of Scriptural teachings.  Since there is NOTHING besides the gospels of Matthew and Luke ever again mentioned about the “virgin” birth by Yeshua or the New Testament writers (even though such an occurrence, if it really happened, should have been OFTEN referenced) the “virgin” account is proven to be extremely inconsistent with the rest of Scripture and therefore strong evidence is seen that the “virgin” birth accounts are probably corrupt additions to the New Testament.  It is even proven to be inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament!  I discuss this further in the article.  Thus, my rejection of the “virgin” birth cannot be legitimately represented as being equal to rejecting the New Testament.  I simply point out a clear inconsistency that the “virgin” birth promoters refuse to admit is present because of their emotional or doctrinal dependence upon the issue.
Introduction
This article discusses an issue of importance due primarily to its emphasis within traditional Christianity.  In my opinion it may indeed be important 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.

Ok, be honest.  Admit it.  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 is such a beautiful story!  The intense 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 Messiah may be corrupted.

“Sugar and spice and everything nice” dances in the minds of most Christians during Christmas (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 YHVH 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 Christians consider the virgin birth to be heartwarming, sweet and beautiful.

Well, error – particularly error that blasphemously lowers the Creator to 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,” “beautfiful,” or “heartwarming”.
There is an “all or nothing” mindset within Christianity.  Christianity being that 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 probably false and is most certainly NOT supported from the Tanakh (older Testament) – a fact I will prove in this article.

I realize most will angrily condemn me and reject this article, as well as most other facts I present on this web site, 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).

2 Thessalonians 2:10,11 (NASB95)
10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
I have found that most 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 deception is exactly what will be found by Yeshua when he returns to finally rebuke the false teachers, violators of the Divine teachings, and all others who struggle to perpetuate the age-old lies of the mystery Babylon religion.

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

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

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

The prophecy cited (Isaiah 7:14) to support the “virgin birth” is misinterpreted by 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.
I will address the arguments regarding the likely more proper translation of the word often rendered as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14.

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

My final comparison to the alleged Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of the “virgin birth” will be to illustrate how IF it does indeed prophesy about Messiah, it can only do so as a “near-far” prophecy – one that has a “near” (at the time of the prophecy) and a “far” (a second more distant meaning) application.  And IF it is such a near-far prophecy, it MUST be consistent in its application.  As I will show, the traditional Christian application to Messiah's birth is NOT consistent with its original application to the birth of Isaiah's son.  I fully accept the presence of “near-far” prophecies; however, Isaiah 7:14 does not appear to pass the consistency test that is required for such an application.

The belief among 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.

I will discuss the absolute necessity for Messiah to be a literal descendant of King David through his human father and how this fact of Scripture is discarded by Christian/Messianic apologists as they promote a false Messiah (antichrist) – a REPLACEMENT Messiah that usurps and replaces the true Messiah of Scripture.

Finally I 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 I never saw it discussed until after I had published this article, though I doubt I am alone or the first in realizing its importance.
The simple fact is that the “virgin birth” is never again mentioned or implied anywhere in the New Testament writings except for the alleged birth accounts in Matthew's and Luke's gospels.  Furthermore, even in those birth accounts the “virgin” aspect is not given emphasis except for the handful of verses.  This undeniable fact provides strong evidence that the “virgin birth” probably 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?  Elsewhere in other articles I make this same argument regarding the demand within Christianity and counterfeit Messianism that one must accept that Messiah Yeshua is God.  The demand that one MUST accept that 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 me to define what I mean when I 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 loosing one's virginity.  I 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, my use of the term “virgin” is to denote the one to whom the virgin birth, as just defined, applies.  It is my firm conviction – a conviction fully supported from the Holy Scriptures – that Mary, the mother of Yeshua, did not conceive as a virgin, in the sense of not having relations with Joseph.  I will specify when and where my 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.  I know personally of some and have heard reports of many others who 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”.  Personally, I consider it insincere and deceptive for them to continue to promote what they actually do not believe.  For them and for many others peer pressure, pride, and the fear of losing their profitable positions take precedence over serving God with a sincere heart.  By teaching what they do not themselves believe, they prove themselves to be practicing willful deception and prove that truth (and thus serving God) is not their highest priority.

Let me also clarify that I DO consider Yeshua (falsely called by the name “jesus”) to be the promised Messiah.  Most 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 false teachers have been in persuading many that their beliefs are Biblical, while they are actually very UNbiblical.  Tragically, since the Scriptural study habits of most Christians are woefully poor, they are easily victimized by the Adversary's emissaries who are tasked with deceiving the entire world (Rev. 12:9).

So, if you assume that the objective of this article is to oppose Messiah, you are mistaken.  My objective here and elsewhere in my discussions is to exalt the TRUE Messiah Yeshua presented in the New Testament while I expose the FALSE “christ” of traditional Christianity, which is NOT the Messiah in the New Testament writings.  I hope to begin to shake 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 Messiah by many Jews, as well as many others who know Scripture, is the pagan doctrine of godly procreation promoted by the virgin birth teaching.

I 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 YHVH (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 (Older Testament).  In the book of Acts we read of a group of people whom the author describes as “more noble” than others.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that theyreceived the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scripturesdaily, whether those things were so.
Note the reason they were considered noble is because they listened to the apostle's teachings “with all readiness of mind” (they were not close minded) and they “searched the Scriptures daily” to prove if what they were being taught was true.  It seems to surprise some people to realize that the “Scripture” they searched was the Tanakh.  The New Testament did not even exist at that time!  Despite this, most Christians virtually never truly test what they are taught or interpret from their readings of the New Testament by seeing if it can be directly verified or implied from the Tanakh.  Instead, most Christians blasphemously conclude the Tanakh is largely irrelevant.  I prove elsewhere, in the article that discusses what is Holy Scripture, that ALL references to “Scripture” in the New Testament actually refer to the Tanakh, not to the New Testament.

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

Well, 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 Tanakh than the issue of the virgin birth.  Ultimately, as I will show, the issue becomes one of glaring contradiction between the Tanakh and the alleged birth accounts in the New Testament.

Sadly, virtually all Christians and counterfeit Messianics do directly the opposite of what the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 did.  Most reverse the test applied by those Bereans by elevating the New Testament above the Tanakh as the ultimate authority, despite the fact the Apostolic writings (New Testament) teach against such an approach.  When the TRUE test – the same test those “more noble” utilized – is applied, the virgin birth is proven to be a probable fabrication by those seeking to proliferate the ancient and continuing mystery Babylon sun-god false religion that has always stood against God's truths.

Now to the study.

——————————————————————————–
Contrary to what most Christians andcounterfeit Messianics think, if it was somehow proven beyond doubt that Yeshuawas actually not born of a virgin but was the literal son of Joseph, itwould not negatively affect Yeshua's prophetic hold on being the Messiahat all!  However,because of their incorrect understanding of what “Messiah” is, it probably wouldunnecessarily damage their faith.
ONLY if Joseph was Yeshua's father would Yeshua meet the primary necessity of literally being of the seed of David, a crucial fact of Messianic lineage that the virgin birth doctrine seriously weakens. So, if Joseph is proven to be his father, such news would positively impact Yeshua's prophetic hold to being Messiah.  Such news would also not negatively affect his being the SCRIPTURAL “Son of God”.  I discuss what the term “Son of God” actually means in a separate article on this web site.  The term “son of God” does NOT mean a literal “son” of the Almighty God, and I invite you to read that short article in order to grasp the correct Scriptural definition of “son of God.”

A Traditional Christian misunderstanding of Scripture is shown by the common wrong 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 NOTHING in the Hebrew Scriptures that requires Messiah 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 claims of Traditional Christian and counterfeit Messianic preachers.  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 shown to not even be 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 many 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 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 to render as “virgin”.  For many years I was successfully deceived into ignoring the context by limiting my study of Isaiah 7:14 to the “almah” word game played by traditional Christian and counterfeit Messianic leaders.

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 consideration of context by focusing on the less crucial and more confusing word game surrounding the “virgin” translation of almah.

In orderfor Isaiah 7:14 to be Messianic it must be completely separated from ALL thesurrounding passages.  However, as with many other passages of Scripture, traditional Christian and counterfeit Messianic leaders 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, I will nevertheless address the issue, since it is so often raised.

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 error as 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.  When I discovered this I was further convinced that much of traditional Christian doctrine is built upon bias, ignorance, or deception.

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 (jesus) is not of the lineage of David through his earthly father and therefore does not meet the requirements for Messiah.

The New Strong's Guide to Bible Words shows 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 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 (older 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 possibly 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 I 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.

I will concede 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 I said, the word games played by desperate, biased Trinitarians and others seek
ing to promote the lie of pagan godly procreation are 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, I will do what few Christian or Messianic leaders do, I will present the actual context of the verse and highlight crucial areas here in the written article.  This will prove that the use of Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic passage is a prime example of biased-based distortion and context shredding of Scripture.  I will even use the King James Version, the favorite of many who opposing us within traditional Christianity.  My proof is even more pronounced if other versions are used; however, to preclude the accusation of using a version hand picked to strengthen my argument, I 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 who are sincere and open minded to God's Truth instead of in bondage to traditional bias.

Isaiah 7:1-8:8 (KJV)
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 timeframe 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 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.
(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.

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.
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 Is. 8:8, that God would be “with them” during the time of trial that was to come when Syria and Israel strove against Judah and Assyria invaded.
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 th
e information shown earlier regarding the use of almah to mean “a young woman” (i.e., “sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may of may not be sexually active”) is considered.  I will comment more on this a little later.
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, I feel the context more correctly points to Isaiah's son as the fulfillment.  Either way, the newborn child being prophesied was for THAT PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME as a sign to Ahaz.  The prophecy was NOT for the timeframe 700 years after Ahaz was dead (Yeshua was born about 700 years after this prophecy)!
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 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.
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.
I humbly challenge anyone to show me FROM THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH that this verse applies to the Messiah!  And don't throw Matthew and Luke at me, writings for which evidence exist of scribal manipulation, an issue I 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 Tanakh, just as was done by the “noble” Bereans of Acts 17:11.  Almost all Christians seem to forget or ignore this clear teaching from the pages of the New Testament.

For those that may think my understanding of Isaiah 7:14 is mindless anti-Christian bias, I will now quote form a Christian commentary that agrees completely with the points I just presented.  Interestingly, I came across this more than a year after first publishing this article and was surprised as you may be to discover that there are some Christian scholars who honestly present the truth, though they usually do voice a “disclaimer” of sorts in which they note how they accept the virgin birth, knowing that if they do not they may be ostracized from the Christian community.  The following is taken from Be comforted, by Warren W. Wiersbe.  It is a commentary on the book of Isaiah.  This quote is a word-for-word quote from the commentary with the relevant areas shown in bold letters.  My personal comments are shown in bracketed red, italicized letters.

“… 1. Immanuel: A message of hope (Isa. 7:1–25)
A promise to King Ahaz (Isa. 7:1–9). [Note that he immediately begins his commentary of Isaiah chapter 1 with the exact point I previously made, which is that the prophecies of Isaiah chapter 7 were made to Ahaz and NOT intended to apply to an event that was not to occur for over 700 years!]  These were perilous days for the nation of Judah. Assyria was growing stronger and threatening the smaller nations whose security depended on a very delicate political balance. Syria and Ephraim (the Northern Kingdom) tried to pressure Judah into an alliance against Assyria, but Ahaz refused to join them. Why? Because he had secretly made a treaty with Assyria! (2 Kings 16:5–9) The king was playing “power politics” instead of trusting in the power of God. Syria and Ephraim planned to overthrow Ahaz and put “the son of Tabeel” on the throne, and Ahaz was a frightened man.

The Lord commanded Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub (“A remnant shall return”) and meet Ahaz as the king was inspecting the city’s water system. Ahaz’s heart had been wavering, and the hearts of his people had been shaking for fear (Isa. 7:2); but Isaiah came with a message of assurance: “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted” (v. 4). How would Ahaz find this inner peace? By believing God’s promise that Judah’s enemies would be defeated. “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established” (v. 9, NKJV). Faith in God’s promises is the only way to find peace in the midst of trouble. “You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You” (26:3, NKJV).

In God’s eyes, the two threatening kings were nothing but “two smoldering stubs of firewood” (7:4, NIV), who would be off the scene very soon; and they both died two years later. Furthermore, within sixty-five years, Ephraim (Israel, the Northern Kingdom) would be gone forever. Isaiah spoke this prophecy in the year 734 B.C. Assyria defeated Syria in 732 B.C. and invaded Israel in 722 B.C. They deported many of the Jews and assimilated the rest by introducing Gentiles into the land; and by 669 B.C. (sixty-five years later), the nation no longer existed.

A sign to the house of David (Isa. 7:10–16).  [Note: Ahaz WAS of the “house of David;” therefore, the prophecy of Isa. 7:14 was still specifically directed to Ahaz.  The commentator is trying to dodge the fact that this was a prophecy specifically addressed to King Ahaz.  This attempt to change to whom, specifically, the prophecy of Isaiah was directed within the context is a typical and necessary tactic “virgin birth” promoters MUST slyly do.]  If Ahaz had believed God’s promise, he would have broken his alliance and called the nation to prayer and praise; but the king continued in his unbelief. Realizing the weakness of the king’s faith, Isaiah offered to give a sign to encourage him; but Ahaz put on a “pious front” and refused his offer. Knowing that he was secretly allied with Assyria, how could Ahaz honestly ask the Lord for a special sign? So, instead of speaking only to the king, Isaiah addressed the whole “house of David” and gave the prophecy concerning “Immanuel.”

[Ok, in this next paragraph the author deviates from the pure Scriptural context of his commentary to voice what amounts to a disclaimer in order to force Isaiah 7:14 to fit the standard Christian “virgin birth” teaching.  His interjection of Christian bias at this point is rather obvious. I will place this particular deviation in his commentary in italics.  Within this disclaimer paragraph several standard Christian false teachings are represented that I will not comment on within this article.  Needless to say, I completely disagree with every point made in his disclaimer.]

Of course, the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy is in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is “God with us” (Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:31–35). The virgin birth of Christ is a key doctrine; for if Jesus Christ is not God come in sinless human flesh, then we have no Savior. Jesus had to be born of a virgin, apart from human generation, because He existed before His mother. He was not just born in this world; He came down from heaven into the world (John 3:13; 6:33, 38, 41–42, 50–51, 58). Jesus was sent by the Father and therefore came into the world having a human mother but not a human father (4:34; 5:23–24, 30; 9:4).

However, this “sign” had an immediate significance to Ahaz and the people of Judah. [The author has now once again returned to a true commentary of the actual Isaiah prophecy, and as he does, even he is forced to honestly admit that the “immediate” application of the prophecy was “to Ahaz and the people of Judah.”]  A woman who was then [… meaning at THAT time in history …] a virgin would get married, conceive, and bear a son whose name would b
e “Immanuel.” This son would be a reminder that God was with His people and would care for them. It is likely that this virgin was Isaiah’s second wife, his first wife having died after Shear-jashub was born; and that Isaiah’s second son was named both “Immanuel” and “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” (8:1–4; note vv. 8 and 10).

Orthodox Jewish boys become “sons of the Law” at the age of twelve. This special son was a reminder that Syria and Ephraim would be out of the picture within the next twelve years. Isaiah delivered this prophecy in 734 B.C. In 732 B.C., Assyria defeated Syria; and in 722 B.C., Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom.  The prophecy was fulfilled.  [Did you get that!  Even this Christian commentator openly admits the “virgin birth” prophecy was THEN fulfilled!]

A warning to Judah (Isa. 7:17–25). Instead of trusting the Lord, Ahaz continued to trust Assyria for help; and Isaiah warned him that Assyria would become Judah’s enemy. The Assyrians would invade Judah and so ravage the land that agriculture would cease and the people would have only dairy products to eat (vv. 15, 21–23). The rich farmland would become wasteland, and the people would be forced to hunt wild beasts in order to get food. It would be a time of great humiliation (v. 20; 2 Sam. 10:4–5) and suffering that could have been avoided had the leaders trusted in the Lord.

2. Maher-shalal-hash-baz: A warning of judgment (Isa. 8:1–22)
[In this next paragraph the author again presents the sure fact that the Isa. 7:14 prophecy most assuredly WAS specifically referring to Isaiah's son born by his new virgin wife!]

Isaiah married the virgin, and the legal documents were duly witnessed and sealed. He even announced that their first child would be a son and his name would be Maher-shalal-hash-baz, [Recall that the author previously correctly pointed out how this same child of Isaiah and his virgin (previously unmarried) wife was ALSO named “Immanuel;” thus proviing again that the entire context of the Isaiah chapter 7 prophecy was for THAT time in history.]  which means “quick to plunder, swift to the spoil.” Since Isaiah’s sons were signs to the nation (8:18), this name was significant. It spoke of future judgment when Assyria would conquer Syria and invade both Israel and Judah, and when Babylon would take Judah into exile. A child would start speaking meaningful sentences about the age of two. In 732 B.C., about two years after Isaiah’s son was born, both Pekah and Rezin were dead (7:1); and Assyria had conquered Syria and begun to invade Israel (2 Kings 15:29). The army was “quick to plunder and swift to take the spoil.”

In the remainder of this chapter, Isaiah used three vivid contrasts to show the rulers of Judah the mistake they were making by trusting Assyria instead of trusting the Lord. …”

I applaud the honesty of the author of the Christian commentary I just quoted.  Except for his one “disclaimer” paragraph about how the prophecy to Ahaz also allegedly applies to Messiah, he presents a refreshingly truthful interpretation.

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.”  I discuss the use of ejection buttons to “eject” from a Scriptural debate in my article on Kabbalah.

If a prophecy cannot be shown to apply from the Tanakh 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 superior to the Tanakh, 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.  Read or listen to the article, “What is HOLY Scripture?”, for my argument regarding what is TRULY “Holy” Scripture.

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 700 years later.

Also, IF Isa. 7:14 is a dual prophecy, a near-far prophecy that had fulfillment during Ahaz's time and also applied to the birth of Messiah, then why is it not argued that the birth of Isaiah's son was also a “virgin birth?”  The same Hebrew word and same verse of Scripture would apply to Isaiah's son; therefore, the same interpretation of the word rendered “virgin” in many Bibles would have to apply THEN as well as at Messiah's birth.  Whatever the birth circumstances surrounding Isaiah's wife's pregnancy, the same circumstances should apply to Joseph's wife's (Mariam/Mary) pregnancy, the mother of Messiah Yeshua (christ jesus).  To be consistent the meaning of the verse THEN would have to be the same as the meaning when Messiah was born, which would strongly suggest the literal “virgin” aspect of Messiah's birth is incorrect.  But instead, “virgin birth” promoters totally change the meaning and thereby prove their bias and lack of consistency, thus displaying yet again their typical tactic of context shredding and distortion of Scripture to fit whatever they wish it to say.

The common Christian interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 applies to Messiah (despite the contextual evidence proving otherwise) was possibly accomplished 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 man-God of pagan thought.  The typical, almost universal argument I receive from those who disagree with me 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.”

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.  Seriously!  Many 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 more closely aligned with their mystery Babylon-based religions beliefs.  So, a person must be truly 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 who 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 (Older 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 in the entire Bible!!!

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 Tanakh, despite the fact that very New Testament warns them to ALWAYS base truth on the Tanakh!  Later I will present one case of SURE corruption, that being the discrepancy between the recorded genealogies of Messiah shown in Matthew and Luke.

Many who disagree with me vehemently present another argument similar to the following:

“The New Testament has been proven 99 percent accurate.”
Let's assume that I accept their statement. In fact, I do believe that the New Testament is highly reliable and state such elsewhere on this web site.  I may even argue for accuracy greater than 99 percent.  The question is, do those making arguments such as these 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 corrupt, 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 alledged birth accounts of 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 who accuse me of discarding passages I 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 myself.

The difference between me and those who hypocritically accuse me of selective New Testament acceptance is that I, unlike my accusers, use the same approach as the “noble” Bereans (Acts 17:11).  I test the verses of the New Testament by comparing them to what is written in the Tanakh, just as the New Testament authors command.  This test is virtually never used by Christians or counterfeit Messianics.  Therefore, my 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 I follow the command to test the apostolic writings using the Tanakh, I am more of a “New Testament believer” than my Constantinian Christian opponents!  I ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE NEW TESTAMENT MORE CLOSELY THAN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME!  This is further investigated in the article I previously mentioned, which discusses what is TRUE “Holy” Scripture.

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!

I am NOT saying the New Testament is bogus.  Many falsely accuse me of that since they cannot refute my arguments using the Tanakh or scholarship!  All I am 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.  I am 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 text within the Greek manuscripts is 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 Tanakh by verifying that their interpretation of New Testament passages has Tanakh support.

When the advice of the New Testament authors to verify the New Testament using the Tanakh 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 an
ti-Torah doctrines).
Source: http://ss789.fusionbot.com/b….rth&emb

[GeneBalthrop]

Adam………… Good Job…………I have long ago studied the Immanuel account with the Jews and they were right that was a sign given to Ahaz by GOD and it dealt with Issiah's son named Immanuel and the word for Virgin was in fact (young women). That whole thing does give cause to question the virgin berth idea. Jesus had to come from a direct line of King David also in order to be the Messiah. IMO

peace and love to you and yours brother…………………….gene

[kerwin]

Quote (Gene @ Jan. 14 2010,12:29)

Adam………… Good Job…………I have long ago studied the Immanuel account with the Jews and they were right that was a sign given to Ahaz by GOD and it dealt with Issiah's son named Immanuel and the word for Virgin was in fact (young women).  That whole thing does give cause to question the virgin berth idea. Jesus had to come from a direct line of King David also in order to be the Messiah.  IMO peace and love to you and yours brother…………………….gene

I am going to disagree.  The correct word is most like maiden which can either be young woman or virgin.  The Children of Israel expected a young woman to be virgin.

[terraricca]

hi
gene/Goll.

you make a long story about a few verses it is enough to get lost in your arguments ,i am fortunate to have a certain knowledge of the bible sins i don't read verse alone and never read all of it .

so like KERWIN also mention “virgin or maiden whats the difference ??
i believe you little story is more to confuse the not so strong in the faith ,and create more likely disorder than true wisdom,like you recognized you self it does not do anything more than open a other question is Jesus the messiah or not and that the devil question.

your story stink the devil.because you have not accomplishes anything but destruction.

[banana]

I am also going with kerwin and terrarrica,  there is a Scripture that says that She was a Maiden and at that time it was really a embarrassing event if someone had sex before Marriage.  That is why Joseph wanted to marry Maria.  However the Catholics are wrong in believing that Maria stayed a Virgin.  That She did not.  
Math. 1:25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.  And He called His name Jesus.
Peace and Love Irene

[GeneBalthrop]

Kerwin….. My point was that the word used in the text does not mean a virigin, it means a young women or maiden, (NOT A VIRGIN) given that in most cases in Israel a maiden or young women was a virgin, but that did not give the translators the right to change the text, that is the point here. And Adam is right as concerning the Immanuel thing , He was a sign to King Ahaz and that prophesy had nothing to do with the berth of Jesus at all. You and Terraricca and Irene need to read the complete article and think abut it before making any conclusions. While i do not say that completely disallows the immaculate berth issue it does give cause of concern. Even the two story's of Jesus' genealogy are not the same why is that. Adam certainly has his reasons for concern , IMO

[terraricca]

hi gene
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Jn 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Jn 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God

Jn 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
Jn 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

the importanse here is not if Christ had underware or not the question you go afther ,”could it be that he is not the Christ” and their would not be truth then.

some of your questions are smelling the devil

[NickHassan]

G,
What evidence do you have of the text being changed or does it just not align with your intellect-none?
Let scripture rule and reform your wayward intellect.

[terraricca]

terraricca

Group: Members
Posts: 1145
Joined: Oct. 2009 Posted: Jan. 15 2010,04:34

——————————————————————————–
hi gene
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Jn 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Jn 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God

Jn 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
Jn 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

the importanse here is not if Christ had underware or not the question you go afther ,”could it be that he is not the Christ” and their would not be truth then.

some of your questions are smelling the devil

[GeneBalthrop]

terraricca……….No one here is questing the Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of GOD. So your implying thing that are not even being talked about is ridiculous, the question was about the “virgin” berth and the Immaculate conception and involves nothing else, so you continually trying to draw it out into something not even being dealt with is wrong on you part. And pleas show me (ONE) question that i or Adam have said is “smelling the devil”. Your suspicions are more “smelling the devil” then anything is. In a way your responding like thinker does bouncing off the walls and not really staying on subject matter. IMO

[terraricca]

hi gene
you try to say i just operate on the hand but do not think who s hand it is or who care about the body we just get operate the hand,in fact you do not care anything beside making your discussion is that what i have to understand is to stay in the matter ,you say you live by the spirit think again i don't think you do not know what it means.
“a man had 100 sheep and one got lost he left the 99 to look for the one “do you understand this?

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 15 2010,05:34)

G, What evidence do you have of the text being changed or does it just not align with your intellect-none? Let scripture rule and reform your wayward intellect.

Nick…….The two accounts in Mat1:16…> And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus who is called Christ.

Luk 4:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being (as was supposed), the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Luk 4:22…..> And all bare him witness and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, is not this Joseph's son?

Joh 1:45 Philip finds Nathanael, and said unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth the Son of Joseph.

The apostles and the geology list Jesus as the son of Joseph
The only way i can see around this is if Jesus was an adopted sonof Joseph, He still could have claim to Davids throne, but the he would not have been a blood line to David. And to use Mary as the Blood line is not listed in the genealogy. So it does give rise to speculations. IMO,

The use of the Immanuel thing is obviously wrong and was pulled out of context in scripture, and the word used as VIRIGIN is not the word Used it the quoted text of Issiah .

Nick the evidence is who was Isaiah sent to, it was Ahaz and no one else. Trying to force the text to make it appear as describing Jesus as a GOD WITH US. Is and error and is used to support the false TRINITARIAN TEACHING OF JESUS BEING A GOD. AS WELL AS HIS PREEXISTENCE. Go and read the Prophesy to Ahaz and come back and tell us how this can be perceived as a prophesy about Jesus.

Nick before you start your mouthing off again check out what ADAM and I am saying first.

No one is saying Jesus is not the true Messiah, and the one who died for our sins, this is (NOT) a salvation issue, at all as Adam said. It is obvious to us that there are some textual differences.

What is interesting is why some think that Jesus identity to there salvation is only in his “immaculate conception” . Like if He weren't immaculately conceived their whole Faith in him is destroyed.

[terraricca]

hi gene
if Mary is not a true maiden (virgin) this will make what out the angel Annunciation and what would it do to the Holiness of God recieving the offerings of Christ body as the sacrifices,and in those condition could he be the son of God….

I do believe that you have not the spirit, it seems you do not look beyond your little inside ego.

[banana]

Adam ! Is it not more important to us that Christ died for us and now we have a Mediator and Salvation through Him, then worrying about how He was born? I do and find it so ridiculous to argue about that fact, whether He was born of a Virgin or not. We know by the Witnesses, Paul Mark Math. that He is our Savior. With translating from Hebrew and Greek into English I am certain that some got lost and we should not make such a stink about whether He is born of a Virgin or not. It is more important that we will grow into grace and love for others and be more like Christ. You come on here what once in a while and get some upset, is that right of you to do? So stop the bull……..
Peace and Love Irene

[NickHassan]

G,
Is it the right way to question the veracity of scripture when our intellect is confounded?
Does intellect rule?

[terraricca]

hi nick
i have a question for you ;
did Jesus ad brothers i mean not direct cousins but from same mother and Joseph ?

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 15 2010,12:18)

hi gene if Mary is not a true maiden (virgin) this will make what out the angel Annunciation and what would it do to the Holiness of God recieving the offerings of Christ body as the sacrifices,and in those condition could he be the son of God…. I do believe that you have not the spirit, it seems you do not look beyond your little inside ego.

Terraricca……… Please show me where i said Mary was (NOT) a virgin, i said the word used in the Quote od Issiah meant a young maiden or young women, the issue of Mary beaing a virgin was never the point in the discussion.

I have long ago stop letting mere men tell me if i am Spiritual or not , You have (NO) idea what I am and My relationship with GOD the FATHER or Jesus, My brother, for that matter nor anyone else's, because i disagree with you, you accuse me of smelling of the devil, then you go on to judge my Spirituality. When in fact the very accusations of you “smells like the devil” to me after all he was an accuser of the brethren. If you can't respond to the issues we are discussing without labeling and false accusing , it is better you do not reply to them.

[GeneBalthrop]

Nick………Intellect rules over blind ignorance every time. IMO

Nick quit skirting the issue go and read the Prophesy of Issiah from GOD to King Ahaz, and come back and lets discuss it.

I believe Adam does have a valid point, check it out first before you make an evaluation OK , you think you can do that for a change. This is no a salvation issue, but does give cause to believe the text we have has be altered. IMO

[Author]

Posts