- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
The Illogic of the Virgin Birth
Aside from the fact that the Virgin Birth DOESN'T SQUARE with the Torah and the Prophets, but fits perfectly with the paganism of the period, and aside from the fact that it sparked no controversy in the New Testament but did the minute the Gentile church fathers began disputing with the Judahites — aside from all that the Virgin Birth is ILLOGICAL!
The Virgin Birth would make sense if the Messiah were an avatar of some preexistent divinity or angel such as suggested by Barker (1992). Mary would have been a surrogate mother, and as such there would have been no need for a father. But for those who reject the preexistence of the Messiah, why should there be a Virgin Birth?
Why would the Bible preserve father to son genealogies from Adam to Joseph only to have the Messiah adopted into the genealogy? If Yeshua were a preexistent being then this would make sense — otherwise it does not.
And so for Trinitarians, Binitarians, and various genres of Arians, the Virgin Birth does make sense, and thus my argument is not directed at them but to those who reject the personal preexistence of the Messiah.
Notice what William Barclay says regarding Luke 1:26-38 —
“In this passage we are face to face with one of the great controversial doctrines of the Christian faith – the virgin birth. The Church does not insist that we believe in this doctrine. Let us look at the reasons for and against believing in it, and then we may make our own decision.
“There are two great reasons for accepting it.
(1) The literal meaning of this passage, and still more of Matthew 1:18-25, clearly is that Jesus was to be born of Mary without a human father.
(2) It is natural to argue that if Jesus was, as we believe, a very special person, he would have a special entry into the world.
“Now let us look at the things which may make us wonder if the story of the virgin birth is to be taken as literally as all that.
(1) The genealogies of Jesus both in Luke and in Matthew (Luke 3:23-38; Matthew 1:1-17) trace the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, which is strange if Joseph was not his real father.
(2) When Mary was looking for Jesus on the occasion that he lingered behind in the Temple, she said, ‘Your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety’ (Luke 2:48). The name father is definitely given by Mary to Joseph.
(3) Repeatedly Jesus is referred to as Joseph’s son (Matthew 13:55; John 6:42).
(4) The rest of the New Testament knows nothing of the virgin birth. True, in Galatians 4:4 Paul speaks of Jesus as ‘born of woman’. But this is the natural phrase for any human being (cf. Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4).
“But let us ask, ‘If we do not take the story of the virgin birth literally, how did it arise?’ The Jews had a saying that in the birth of every child there are three partners – the father, the mother and the Spirit of God. They believed that no child could ever be born without the Spirit. And it may well be that the New Testament stories of the birth of Jesus are lovely, poetical ways of saying that, even if he had a human father, the Holy spirit of God was operative in his birth in a unique way. [Or that this emphasis on the spirit of God led to some textual corruption.” NR]
There are some who subscribe to the preexistence of the soul, but for such believers the body still results from the union of egg and sperm and thus for them the Virgin Birth still makes no sense.
Another scenario one might imagine would be that what was found in Mary’s womb derived not from the normal union of egg and sperm but was a zygote independently created as if at the moment of “conception” — perhaps prefigured by Adam who was without human parentage. Nevertheless the new creation (καιν κτίσις) that we are to become (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15) in no way implies a by-passing of the normal process of conception and birth.
Aside from such a scenario, what would the Virgin Birth entail for the non-Trinitarian, non-Binitarian and non-Arian?
It would mean that YEHOVAH God committed adultery! YEHOVAH would have committed adultery with the woman betrothed to Joseph. For either the child entered Mary’s womb as a zygote (fertilized egg), or it resulted from the fertilization of one of Mary’s eggs by a sperm from outside. And if this is what made YEHOVAH God become the Father of the Messiah, it was adultery plain (if not pure) and simple.
The Trinitarians, of course, have taken the position that the Messiah was an avatar of the Second Person of the Trinity — whatever that means — and that Yeshua’s sonship does not derive from a conception in Mary’s womb. Thus the Trinitarians speak of “the Father eternally generating the Son.” One never hears that it was the conception in Mary’s womb that bestowed fatherhood on YEHOVAH God. To say so would be accusing YEHOVAH God of adultery.
But Luke, it seems to me, speaks not of surrogate motherhood, but of a conception (Luke 1:31), “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” And then again in Luke 2:21 we are told, “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” It is similarly said of Elizabeth (Luke 1:24), “And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived,” and again by the angel in verses 36-37, “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.”
Now to sum up: Mary was either a surrogate mother or YEHOVAH God committed adultery with her. The virgin birth makes sense only if the Messiah was an avatar of a preexistent being, whether that being was God himself (the Second Person of the Trinity), a second YHVH (One of the Binity), or a created being. The latter might have been created eons in the past (the Arian view) or at the moment the zygote entered Mary’s womb.
My wife brings up another irony: If YEHOVAH committed adultery with Mary he also committed incest, for wasn’t YEHOVAH also Mary’s Father even before the conception occurred (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; 1 Chron 29:10; Luke 3:38; etc.)?
Therefore I have to agree with the Trinitarians insofar as they reject the notion that YEHOVAH God became the Messiah’s father via the conception in the womb of Mary as described in Luke 1:31, 35. Rather it was from the womb that the Messiah was led by a holy spirit and that is what made him a son.
It’s not that the Messiah began as a divine emissary from Heaven, or a special physical creation, rather it’s that A MAN OF ISRAEL — a prophet from the midst of Israel, an Israelite like unto Moses (Deut 18:15), one from the very reproductive organs of Abraham (Gen 15:4) and of David (2 Sam 7:12) and from whose genealogy a man (àÄéùÑ) would never be cut off (2 Sam 7:12) — that a MAN is exalted to heaven via a resurrection from the dead such that he can occupy the throne of David and bring lasting peace to this world. This is the good news of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God!
How Is He Then a son?
The shocking but wonderfully good news of the New Testament was that Yeshua the Messiah had been resurrected from the dead. Until that point the disciples seem to have understood that Yeshua was the messiah, meaning that he had come to sit upon the throne of David and restore the kingdom to Israel. It was not in their purview to think that he would die first.
But think what that would have meant. Once again there would have been a mortal sitting upon the throne of David. How long would he reign? Forty years? Maybe a little longer? However long and however effective his reign, how would it be any better than that of Moses or Joshua or David? Justice would prevail and
the nations would flow up to Jerusalem for however long, and then what? The same old same old. Human nature being what it is, sooner or later the leader would go astray and so would the people.No, a resurrection to immortality was required!
When the angel tells Mary that (Luke 1:35) “a holy spirit shall come upon thee,” this parallels what had been said to Zachariah in regard to his son (verse 15), “…and he shall be filled with a holy spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” From the perspective of Luke NEITHER pregnancy is sired by the holy spirit, rather in each instance the child is to be IMBUED with a holy spirit from the womb.
Again when the angel tells Mary (verse 35), “…therefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, a son of God,” this matches what Luke cites from the Torah in Luke 2:23, “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”
What is the contrast that Luke intends? Let me suggest this: If the firstborn of an Israelite woman is holy, so also is the firstborn of the celestial Jerusalem — as pictured in the book of Revelation (Rev 12:1-5):
“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”
Note that there is no mention of the Messiah’s human birth and no mention of his death. The “travailing” is the birth pangs of the Messiah (çÆáÀìÅé îÈùÑÄéçÇ) — not the Messiah’s “passion” and death — it’s the suffering not of the Messiah but of the NATION giving birth — and there is no mention of his death. Rather the Messiah is caught up to YEHOVAH God so as not to be devoured by the dragon, i.e., the demonic power behind Rome. Thus the birth chronicled here is not the virgin birth but rather the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead. We, unlike the Messiah who has been so birthed already, we yet await our turn within the womb of Israel (Rev 20:1-5), nevertheless, as Paul says, we all — the Messiah included — have the same celestial mother (Gal 4:26): “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”
Thus Luke records that the Messiah not only will be called holy, he will be called (Luke 1:35) “a son of God.” And this accords with what Paul says in Romans 8:14: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” And just as every male that opens the womb is holy, so also would he that opens the womb of the celestial Jerusalem be called holy, a son of God. It’s the spirit that would come upon him in the womb that would set him apart as a son of YEHOVAH God. The angel’s statement (Luke 1:35) that the “holy spirit shall come upon thee and power of the Most High shall overshadow thee” is paralleled by Peter’s recollection (Acts 10:38), “as God anointed him with holy spirit and with power”
It was just as it had been prophesied. Inheritance and scepter come via the patriarchy (Num 1:18-19; 2:1-2), and genetic descent is everywhere emphasized. Israel’s Messiah exemplifies both the human genealogy and a godly inspiration (Isaiah 11):
1 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 “And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD…”
Taking in stride all of Luke’s statements we see that the anointing in Luke 1:35 was not what made Mary pregnant — it was what made Yeshua the Messiah or Christ.
Luke 1:35 need say nothing different then John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” What was incarnated by a spirit of holiness was the Torah (Jer 31:32 [33]), “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
The author of the Epistles of John says two things. He says that we — including the Messiah — are sons of YEHOVAH God (1 John 1:3; 3:2; etc.), and he says that the Messiah has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3):
“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
The point is made again in 2 John 1:7 —
“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
Now if saying that Yeshua has not come in the flesh perverts the promise of Scripture in regard to the Messiah, might also denying that the Messiah had a HUMAN FATHER verge on being an anti-messianic deception?
gollamudi,
Jesus probably had a “Sefer Yuchsin” which records his male ancestors, not female. I am not sure how the decent through a female would affect that since one's Judaism is through the mother. I am also not sure how adoption would effect it though one could not be adopted into a tribe other than one's birth tribe.
Hi brother Kerwin as per Jewish tradition one will become a Jew through his mother but I don't agree with this view since Solomon's genealogies consists of four non-jewish woman (Tamar, Rachab, Ruth and Bethseba) but his tribe or geneology will be determined through his father. Here are some links on such arguments;
1. http://jewsandjoes.com/can-dna….ry.html
2. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080725090340AAa9zNO
3. http://204.200.197.131/jesusbible/genealogy-jesus.htm
4. http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/11561294/
5. http://www.historyswomen.com/womenoffaith/tamar.htm
6. http://judaism.about.com/b….her.htm
7. http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/swift/swift1.htmlPlease see for yourself virgin birth can not be logical in any way.
peace to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Feb. 12 2010,09:03) Hi brother Kerwin as per Jewish tradition one will become a Jew through his mother but I don't agree with this view since Solomon's genealogies consists of four non-jewish woman (Tamar, Rachab, Ruth and Bethseba) but his tribe or geneology will be determined through his father. Here are some links on such arguments; 1. http://jewsandjoes.com/can-dna….ry.html
2. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080725090340AAa9zNO
3. http://204.200.197.131/jesusbible/genealogy-jesus.htm
4. http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/11561294/
5. http://www.historyswomen.com/womenoffaith/tamar.htm
6. http://judaism.about.com/b….her.htm
7. http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/swift/swift1.htmlPlease see for yourself virgin birth can not be logical in any way.
peace to you
Adam
I agree that modern Jewish tradition is in contradiction to scripture but it seems that tradition was even around in the 1st Century as Paul advocated the Timothy get circumcised because his mother was a Jew.Still, My point is about Jewish genealogies and how a virgin conception would affect them.
Looking at the genealogy by Luke that we have for Jesus I would say that when decent is through the mother then the husband's name would be placed in the genealogy instead of the mother's. This is a hypothosis that I have not been able to test as of yet.
I am not sure why you conclude the virgin conception cannot be logical since it is quite possible for God to arrange for a virgin conception as he does it in some animals on a regular basis. It is not even considered a miracle in those cases.
The legitimate question is whether or not it happened.
Gollamundi,
In one of the links you gave me I found the situation mentioned where an Egyptian father is mentioned in the line of the descendants of Judah because a man died without sons.
1 Chronicals 2:34-35(NIV) reads:
Quote Sheshan had no sons—only daughters.
He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. 35 Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai.This is probably a case of adoption as well since his servant would have been considered a member of his household.
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 13 2005,06:12) we should never think that Christianity begins and ends with us, however… the questions that we ask… the things that we find in the Bible… none of this is new…. while we can never lift tradition to be equal in authority to Scripture, we should also never forget that we are not the first ones to have the Spirit, we are not the first ones to examine the Scriptures…. at this juncture, I will allow another voice from the past more ably explain what I mean… that our Christian predessessors should not be ignored, nor, placed on too high an altar… “….. every inducement to search the Holy Scriptures should be placed in the way of our ministers, and to the younger brethren some guidance should be proffered as to the works most likely to aid them in their studies. Many are persuaded that they should expound the Word, but being unversed in the original tongues they can only fall back upon the help of their English Concordances, and are left floundering about, when a sound comment would direct their thoughts. True, the Holy Spirit will instruct the seeker, but he works by means. The Ethiopian eunuch might have received divine illumination, and doubtless did receive it, but still, when asked whether he understood the Scripture which he read, he replied, “How can I unless some man shall guide me?” The guiding man is needed still. Divines who have studied the Scriptures have left us great stores of holy thought which we do well to use. Their expositions can never be a substitute for our own meditations, but as water poured down a dry pump often sets it to work to bring up water of its own, so suggestive reading sets the mind in motion on its own account…..
In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt.” (Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries) found, among other places, at http://www.bible-researcher.com/commentaries1.html
blessings
“Episte” Are you forgetting what James said to believers?“But if ANY ONE OF YOU lacks wisdom, let him ASK OF GOD, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” James 1:5
The problem that I can see is that some Christians tend to LEAN too heavily upon other MEN to teach them. But what if the Minister, teacher, or Pastor, is a BLIND GUIDE? What if he is practicing sin in secret? Do you honestly think that God's Holy Spirit will guide HIM to all truth? God's Word says that God gives the righteous LIGHT but the wicked remains in darkness.
Yeshua said that the Scribes and Pharisees were “blind guides” If a blind man follows a blind man, then they both fall into the pit.
There was a reason why Yeshua told his disciples to “keep asking”, “keep seeking”, and “keep knocking”, AND THEN it shall be opened to you.
Each person has the responsibility to “make sure of all things”. And they need to put their TRUST IN GOD and a lot less in men.
Again, too many Christians are leaning more upon men for knowledge than leaning upon God and asking Him while they read and study His Word. Then God's Holy Spirit can work and can teach one as they diligently read and study it.
Jeremiah 17:5-8 is very interesting concerning the big mistake of putting too much trust IN MEN.
And I tend to really believe it. Or else how do you explain all of the DIVISIONS in the body of Christ? Sects, denominations, many each pointing accusing fingers toward all those who do not gather with their particular Sect?
And many of the teachings in some churches are clearly the traditions and teachings OF MEN, and not of God.
Yes, true, it is interesting to listen to the words of the earlier church fathers but just because they were Christian believers in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they ALL clearly understood God's Word.
Even the apostle Paul had a struggle in his day with the “superfine apostles” who were even slandering him and expelling innocent Christians from out of their church unlovingly.
Paul wrote:
“For we are not AS MANY, who corrupt the WORD of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” 2 Corinthians 2:17
Paul also said this:
“For the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK; only he who now hindereth will. continue to hinder until he be taken out of the way.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7
So the early Christians were fighting false doctrine, false teachers and false apostles even during their ministry in their day.
So Christians really need to be careful who they “listen” to.
We really DO have to consider what Paul said about the help of the Holy Spirit to teach us. See 1 Cor. 2:10-14
“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for our sakes, that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. for who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? 1 Cor. 4:6-7
Even Peter began to falter when it came to standing up to the believing Jews who still clung to the Law. Paul had to boldly set him straight because he was sinning toward the truth. So we should trust more in the WORD, than in men.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2010,17:14) Quote (gollamudi @ Feb. 12 2010,09:03) Hi brother Kerwin as per Jewish tradition one will become a Jew through his mother but I don't agree with this view since Solomon's genealogies consists of four non-jewish woman (Tamar, Rachab, Ruth and Bethseba) but his tribe or geneology will be determined through his father. Here are some links on such arguments; 1. http://jewsandjoes.com/can-dna….ry.html
2. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080725090340AAa9zNO
3. http://204.200.197.131/jesusbible/genealogy-jesus.htm
4. http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/11561294/
5. http://www.historyswomen.com/womenoffaith/tamar.htm
6. http://judaism.about.com/b….her.htm
7. http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/swift/swift1.htmlPlease see for yourself virgin birth can not be logical in any way.
peace to you
Adam
I agree that modern Jewish tradition is in contradiction to scripture but it seems that tradition was even around in the 1st Century as Paul advocated the Timothy get circumcised because his mother was a Jew.Still, My point is about Jewish genealogies and how a virgin conception would affect them.
Looking at the genealogy by Luke that we have for Jesus I would say that when decent is through the mother then the husband's name would be placed in the genealogy instead of the mother's. This is a hypothosis that I have not been able to test as of yet.
I am not sure why you conclude the virgin conception cannot be logical since it is quite possible for God to arrange for a virgin conception as he does it in some animals on a regular basis. It is not even considered a miracle in those cases.
The legitimate question is whether or not it happened.
Thanks for such agreement brother Kerwin. i still feel that the Jewish view of their Messiah is the right approach because Matthew and Luke wanted to prove Jesus as jewish Messiah through their contradicting Genealogies. No where it was intended that the genealogies were of Mary except we speculate into the writings of Evangilists. I still feel Messiah will be of normal birth of male and female. Only trinitarians require a virgin birth to prove Jesus' divinity or Jesus being not bitten by original sin. No Jew will agree with such views for their Messiah. If at all adoption was intended for Jesus the writers could have spelt it. You know the orthodox Judaism always interpreted that ones genealogy will be decided based father but not mother. Please think over.
AdamWho Was the Messiah's Father?
While the Ebionites — as the successors of the New Testament church led by James — were correctly following Old Testament or Tanakh theology, what about the New Testament? Does the New Testament teach a fully human Messiah that never pre-existed? We will now look at the question of WHO the Messiah was descended from.
Notice what Matthew says in 1:16:
“…and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of WHOM [Joseph and Mary] was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NIV).
There is no doubt that Matthew, in his phrasing of “Jacob the father of Joseph”, leaves no question as to whose son Joseph was, and likewise there is no doubt as to the expression of words in “Joseph, the husband of Mary.” Where Luke's genealogy speaks of Joseph being “the son of Heli”, Matthew uses a stronger quote in “Jacob the father of Joseph.” Matthew adds in his genealogy showing who Joseph was and shows it by his affirmative writing.
Turn now to Luke 2:33:
And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.”
Because of the phrasing of this verse, the skeptic may say “it does not say 'Joseph, his father.'” True, but there are plenty of other verses saying Joseph was the Messiah's father. His father and his mother marveled together of the things that were spoken of him. The following verse should eliminate any doubt from the skeptic's mind as to whose son the Messiah really was. Notice Luke 4:22:
“Everyone was speaking well of him and marveling that such appealing words were coming from his mouth. They were even asking, 'Can this be Yosef's [Joseph's] son?' (Jewish New Testament)”
When the Messiah came to his home city of Nazareth, in the synagogue he read to the congregation from scripture Isaiah 61:1 and added “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Yeshua had told the people that he was the promised Messiah, but they found it hard to believe. Did they not know Yeshua? Was he not the son of a common man named Joseph? There was no question among those who knew him in childhood that he was the son of Joseph. It was because of this knowledge that they wondered at his words, him being the son of a common man.
Since the Ebionites did not accept the first two chapters of Matthew's gospel, let's go to Matthew chapter 13, verses 54 to 56 and see what they say:
“When Yeshua had finished these parables, he left and went to his home town. There he taught them in their synagogue in a way that astounded them, so that they asked, 'Where do this man's wisdom and miracles come from? Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Miryam [Mary]? and his brothers Ya'akov [James], Yosef [Joses], Shim'on [Simon] and Y'hudah [Judas]? And his sisters, aren't they all with us? So where does he get all this?'” (Jewish New Testament).
Again, we have another question: Because of Joseph's common background, that is, being a mere carpenter, and not a priest or a scribe, where did the Messiah gain all the wisdom that proceeded out his mouth? It appears these Judeans did not remember their scriptures very well. The spirit of the LORD (YEHOVAH) would have to be upon one to speak as he did. The scriptures had said that he, the Chosen One would not only be humble and meek, but so would his home environment around him be common. Joseph was a commoner, but blessed as his wife Mary was, for they had a large family of five sons as well as daughters. But let us not deter from the proof that his neighbors in Nazareth had NO doubt as to whom Yeshua's father was — and there was no question that he, Joseph, was his legitimate father.
“They said, 'Isn't this Yeshua Ben-Yosef [the son of Joseph]? We know his father and mother! How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?”'” (John 6:42).
The Messiah referred to himself as the bread which came down from heaven prior to the Judeans making the previous comment. The bread of life spoken of in this chapter is the Word of YEHOVAH God, the manna from heaven. The children of Israel were given manna from heaven to save them when they hungered, but they died because they failed to continue in YEHOVAH's commandments — even after YEHOVAH God supplied the manna and quail. But our salvation is of that bread which is in the Messiah, Yeshua. He, Yeshua, became the bread (or Word) of life from heaven, his bodily shell receiving the spirit — not partially but fully. The Judeans did not understand what the Messiah was saying, but they did know where he physically came from. They knew his father and his mother, that is, they knew he was the son of a carpenter by the name of Joseph. In the last verse quoted, the Judeans were saying they knew Yeshua's father and mother from whom he had come by the flesh.
In the following verse of John 1:45, Philip states, without any expression of doubt, that Yeshua the Messiah was Joseph's biological son:
“Philip found Nathanael and told him, 'We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and about whom the prophets also wrote — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph'”
When Philip said “we have found the one,” he spoke of the promised Messiah, King and Prophet of YEHOVAH God, who came from the city of Nazareth. He was of the seed of David through Joseph.
That the Messiah was 100% man cannot be doubted from the writings of Paul either. This Hebrew writer describes the Messiah's humanity like this —
“Therefore, since the children shared blood and flesh, he likewise partook of those things, so that through death he might deprive of his energy the one who has the strength of death — that is, the Accuser…For surely he does not take hold of messengers, but he takes hold of Abraham's seed. Consequently, he was bound to be made in all ways like his brothers, so that he would become a merciful and trustworthy high priest regarding the things that lead toward God — to the point of making atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:14, 16-17, emphasis mine).
These verses do not say that the Messiah was formed in some ways like his brothers but in “all ways.” This knowledge, then, fashions the dilemma of this discussion. Since no other humans have been described as “God incarnate” by many (the Bible describes no person in such terms), or have claimed to be such in the holy writ, it makes it hard to reconcile a theology that claims that the Messiah was just that — literally “God in the flesh.”
It is possible that Virgin Birth stories were added later to such scriptures by the unknown scribes.
Was the Virgin Birth Doctrine Part of the Original Gospels? Please see this link:
http://hope-of-israel.org/VBdoc.htmlHello brothers, have you ever considered that the “power” of the Holy Spirit may have caused the conception of Mary by taking the sperm from Joseph? And because Mary could have not have conceived otherwise (because she had no intercourse before marriage to Joseph) God considered Himself his Father, because HE CAUSED his conception because it was HIS WILL. So He sent His Holy Spirit and through “the power” of the HS He caused the miraculous conception? If God hadn't willed this miracle then that particular egg and a particular sperm would never been united. Then the Messiah would have been a different person. Anyway, this could be possible.
The Messiah had to be “like Moses” in every way. God told Moses that a prophet LIKE HIM would come FROM among his (Moses) brothers. Moses birth was miraculous wasn't it? And Moses (through God's help) was saved from men trying to kill him as a babe or child. Similar to Yeshua. If God hadn't warned Joseph and Mary to flee to Egypt, then he, too could have been slaughtered along with the rest of the babies King Herod ordered to kill.
And Moses was fully a MAN and a PROPHET. Christ was a MAN and a PROPHET. Many believed him to be a prophet besides the promised Messiah.
Read again the words of Gabriel:
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the POWER of the Highest shall overshadow thee, THEREFORE also that holy thing which shall be born of the SHALL be called the Son of God. And behold,,,,,, thy cousin Elisabeth HATH ALSO CONCEIVED a son in her old age”….”who was called BARREN”. (another miraculous birth) “FOR WITH GOD NOTHING SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE.”
So God caused BOTH births. The difference is that Yeshua's was more of a miracle because Mary had not laid with Joseph, and was still a virgin when she conceived.
And Hebrews says:
“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore, IN ALL THINGS it behooved him to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God,”………….” Hebrews 2:16-17
“But to which of the angels said he AT ANY TIME, 'Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?' ” Heb. 1:13
Also:
“For unto the angels hath HE NOT put in subjection the world to come OF WHICH WE SPEAK.” Heb. 2:5
“So also Christ glorified NOT himself to be made an high priest, but He that said unto him “Thou art my Son, TODAY have I begotten thee.” Hebrews 5:5
In Nazareth in the synagogue Yeshua read out of the book of Isaiah:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because HE hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Luke 4:18-19
gollamudi,
I am actually trying to learn more about interpreting geologies according to the Jewish point of view. In the case of the gemology in Luke this may be presumptuous as he is a gentile unlike Matthew.
An unrelated or loosely related note: Did you hear the author of Matthew seems to have a liking for the number three. This sounds like more Jewish mysticism on his part.
Here is a little about Jewish mysticism that you might be interested in. There seems to be some relationship to the way Jesus taught in parables and chose to use figurative or coded language.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2010,20:48) gollamudi, I am actually trying to learn more about interpreting geologies according to the Jewish point of view. In the case of the gemology in Luke this may be presumptuous as he is a gentile unlike Matthew.
An unrelated or loosely related note: Did you hear the author of Matthew seems to have a liking for the number three. This sounds like more Jewish mysticism on his part.
Here is a little about Jewish mysticism that you might be interested in. There seems to be some relationship to the way Jesus taught in parables and chose to use figurative or coded language.
Did you mean genealogies of Jesus?Hi brother Kerwin,
From your source:“Some historians of religion hold that we should limit the use of the term Kabbalah only to the mystical religious systems which appeared after the twelfth century; they use other terms to refer to esoteric Jewish mystical systems before the 12th century. Other historians of religion view this distinction as arbitrary. In this view, post 12th-century Kabbalah is seen as the next phase in a continuous line of development from the same mystical roots and elements. As such, these scholars feel that it is appropriate to use the term “Kabbalah” to refer to Jewish mysticism as early as the first century of the common era. Orthodox JewsOrthodox Judaism is one of the three major Jewish denominations. Orthodoxy can roughly be classified into Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism ( Hasidic Judaism is a subgroup within Haredi Judaism). It is characterized by: Strict adherence to Halakh typically disagree with both schools of thought, as they reject the idea that Kabbalah underwent significant historical development and change”.
and
“Early forms of esoteric mysticism existed over 2,000 years ago. Ben Sira warns against it in his saying: “You shall have no business with secret things” (Sirach iii. 22; compare Talmud Hagigah 13a; Midrash Genesis Rabbah viii.)”.
No orthodox Jew relies on these mysticisms.
Bro Adam,
If you are looking for logic you may as well disregard faith altogether.
After all our studying…after all our searching…after all the logic…faith remains. Believing in something we can't see (or fully understand).
Love you,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Feb. 13 2010,15:04) Bro Adam, If you are looking for logic you may as well disregard faith altogether.
After all our studying…after all our searching…after all the logic…faith remains. Believing in something we can't see (or fully understand).
Love you,
Mandy
Amazing truth it is Mandy. I know fully well about that. I can't loose my faith which God has given to me. But I want to clarify my doubts on scriptures. You know we can not be so much illogical about certain issues. If at all God has given us understanding and reasoning. I don't want to go in the path of Agnostics like Bart D. Eherman and others. Religion is for the salvation of soul and for its refuse. Finally Love is the binding force between God and us. I know God has ignored all these religious dogmas and blunders if one feels all these years. The same thing may prevail till He reveals every thing black and white.Yet my quest for truth continues without any frustration.
Love to you
AdamGollamundi,
His full name is Jesus ben Sira and he authored the book Sirach in the 2nd century BC. I am not sure what he was speaking of as Paul warns against the same thing in one of his letters.
On the other hand both Paul and Jesus practiced a type of esoteric mysticism which may be fairly normal to the Middle Eastern cultures with their use of flowery language.
Luke 10:21(NIV) reads:
Quote At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
I believe Paul was speaking about “The skills, lore, or practices that are peculiar to a particular activity or group and are regarded as the special province of initiates.” And not about “A religious truth that is incomprehensible to reason and knowable only through divine revelation.”
I believe that the last is covered under the Jewish concept of Godhead.
Gollamundi wrote:
Quote No orthodox Jew relies on these mysticisms.
You do not see the glaring piece of ill-logic in that statement. It is that you are assuming that Orthodox Judaism is the true faith without any substantiating evidence.
I am fairly sure that Jesus was not an orthodox Jew of the Pharisee sect though he did adhere to the Torah. His interpretation was different and thus caused his clashes with the Pharisees of his time.
hi all
if we have doubts about God skills,may be we should look at our faith, may be it needs a overhauling review.
VIRGIN BIRTH A MISCONCEPTION
Shmuel Silberman“Therefore the L-rd will give you a sign. Behold the young woman (almah) is pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).”
For two thousand years Jews have viewed the Virgin Birth myth as an oddity. The New Testament reading of Isaiah 7:14 is such a blatant mistranslation and is so wrenched from context that Jews have assured themselves that they do not need missionaries to understand their own Bible.
The Jewish rejection of “virgin birth” is based on at least ten reasons:
1) Betulah definitely means “virgin” (see Leviticus 21:14- the High Priest can marry only a virgin; Deuteronomy 22:14- a groom claims he did not find betulim, signs of virginity, in his bride). Isaiah 7:14 does not use the word betulah.
2) Almah, mentioned in Isaiah 7:14, means “young woman.” It does not mean virgin (Proverbs 30:18-20 speaks of an adulterous almah!).
3) Christian claim support based on the Greek translation. In fact the Greek word for almah (Parthenos) is used to describe Dinah after she was raped (Genesis 34:2-4)!
4) Five times does Isaiah say the word betulah, but not in 7:14, which supposedly speaks of a virgin birth (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5)!
5) Context: King Achaz is worried that he will suffer defeat by two foreign kings (7:2). Isaiah reassures the king that a woman will give birth to Immanuel (the name means: G-d is with us) . The birth of Immanuel is a “sign” of G-d's rescue (7:14-17).
Achaz will not be reassured by a “sign” that Jesus will be born centuries later. He needs G-d's salvation now.
6) Ha-almah does not mean a young woman but the young woman: someone known to Isaiah and Achaz.
7) Isaiah 7:16 says that Achaz's enemy kings will fall before the son grows up- not in Jesus' time. This prophecy was fulfilled (II Kings 16:5-9, 15:29-30).
8) 7:16 says that while the son is growing up he will “not know to reject bad and choose good.” How can this refer to a divine being?
9) 7:16 says of the son, “he will eat cream and honey” (enjoy prosperity-see 7:22). When did Jesus eat cream and honey?
10) A “sign” must be visible e.g. a rainbow (Genesis 9:13). Mary's alleged virginity was not visible to anyone. Isaiah 8:18 says that children are a “sign” for that is visible.
The evidence against the Christian myth is overwhelming, yet Michael Brown persists in justifying this myth (see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 pp.17-32 ). We do not fault him for offering unconvincing apologetics, for it is a hopeless task.
Brown maintains that both betulah and almah are ambiguous, so either can be used for virgin or non-virgin. Therefore usage of almah in 7:14, maintains Brown, is no reason to reject the virgin birth. This a dim view of the Hebrew language that Isaiah can use no term to clearly mean virgin when that is supposedly his entire point.
He cites a few verses that mention betulah although the issue is not virginity per se. Isaiah 23:4 says, “I have never labored, never given birth, never raised young men or virgins.” Ezekiel 9:6 speaks as: “slay to death old man, young man, virgin, young children and women.” The word “virgin” is used, but the point is “young woman.”
On this basis, Brown argues that betulah does not necessarily mean virgin. This is completely false. That “virgin” is a Biblical expression for unmarried woman does not detract from the literal meaning. In Biblical thought unmarried women are expected to be virgins.
Logically, Brown must at least show that betulah can mean a non-virgin. Rebecca is described in Genesis 24:16 as, “a betulah, whom no man had known.” Brown argues that if betulah clearly means virgin, the rest of the phrase is superfluous. Even if we disregard that parallel expressions are common in Scripture, Brown provides no reason to reject the traditional view that the double expression is meant to include other types of physical intimacy.
Job pledges “not to look lustfully at a betulah” (31:1). Brown thinks that since Job has no way of knowing who is a virgin, he cannot mean virgin. When we reiterate that virgin is a Biblical convention for unmarried woman, Brown's point is moot.
Isaiah metaphorically refers to Babylon as a betulah (47:1) and warns Babylon against a false sense of security. Babylon believes, “I shall not become a widow, or know loss of children” (47:8). What could be better for Brown than a betulah who is widowed and missing her children? He ignores that (1) there is greater fluidity with metaphorical than literal descriptions, (2) Isaiah is referring to Babylon in the present while Babylon is referring to herself in the future.
Finally we come to a verse where betulah and widowhood are explicitly linked: “Lament- like a betulah dressed in sackcloth for the husband of her youth (Joel 1:8).” Here Brown violates a basic rule of interpretation: Scripture in the light interprets Scipture in the dark. Theoretically this verse could be speaking, metaphorically, of a betrothed virgin or a consummated woman (in ancient Jewish culture betrothal and consummation were months apart). Scripture elsewhere mentions betulah in full clarity and so reveals Joel's intention: a betrothed virgin.
Even if there would be a verse where betulah means non-virgin or a verse where almah means virgin, betulah is certainly a clearer expression of virginity. If Isaiah wanted to make a point that a birth would be virginal, undoubtedly he would have not have said almah.
What of the objection that Isaiah is in context clearly speaking of a woman in his time- centuries before Mary? Brown claims that there is “no record of fulfillment” (no verse says “and so Immanuel was born”). In fact, there is no need for any “record of fulfillment.” If Isaiah says he will be born in the contemporary generation, and he clearly does say this (7:16), Immanuel is not Jesus.
Let us look at 7:16 in full: “For before the child will know to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be deserted.” Achaz dreads the two kings of Israel and Aram, but these kings will be defeated before Immanuel grows up.
The evidence against the New Testament is so overwhelming that Brown makes a telling concession. He admits that Immanuel was born in Isaiah's time but claims, like other missionaries, that 7:16 is a dual prophecy. In other words, there are two Immanuels: the real Immanuel and Jesus.
This is totally preposterous. Isaiah gives no indication whatsoever that this is a dual prophecy (indeed dual prophecy is unbiblical). The story surrounding Immanuel's conception has no resemblance to the Nativity of Jesus. What two kings suffered a downfall because of Jesus? Do Christians believe there was a virgin birth in Isaiah's time, in addition to Jesus?!. This explanation is nothing but a desperate attempt to hide from an obvious disproof. Dual prophecy is as baseless as triple or quadruple prophecy.
Finally, the frequency of virgin births in pagan mythology raises great suspicion that the New Testament myth is of pagan, not Biblical origin.
Summary: Betulah definitely means virgin, and Isaiah certainly would have used this word had he spoken of a virgin birth. Immanuel is obviously born in Isaiah's time, and the deliverance his name represents (G-d is with us) was predicted to be fulfilled, and was fulfilled, in those days. Mary has no more to do with Immanuel than does the mother of Elvis Presley.
goll
the scriptures have written the way and it is understood ,trough the entire bible this will not be open to a fighting mach by any man no matter of is wisdom.
gollamudi ,
The Greek translation we have are older than the Hebrew translations and therefore more reliable. You are basing your interpretation on the least reliable of the two. That in itself makes your argument flawed.
Your second flaw is that you cheery pick a definition for the Jewish word as it can either mean virgin or young woman.
Your third flaw is that all young women are subject to becomming pregnant and thus one doing so is not a sign.
We have covered this nonsense before and I would rather go on to new territory.
Virgin birth is still a problem for true believers of Hebrew Bible. You didn't prove any thing here. You are simply negating the proofs I have given here. Any woman can be virgin before her conception but no Jew can assume a betrothed woman allegedly thinks that she can not know the reason for her conception. It only the creation of the writer of Luke to put words in the mouth of Mary. You are not seeing the truth how can you know the facts?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
