- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
The following is the excellent post I ever read on this forum. It was posted by Christofer to Nick Hassan in 2005.
“oh Nick –
It is as easy as understanding where and how things happened – and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let me try to answer your points…These forums involve people who at least love and respect the Word of God and do not doubt it’s veracity but come together to more deeply understand it by comparing verse with verse.How do you explain to someone that scripture is sacred?
I do not explain that scripture is sacred – it is simply the best record we have on God. Jesus certainly quoted it – but it is interesting that He changed so many ‘laws’ (such as in Matthew 5-7) … this is hardly the picture of respect you paint about His view on the scriptures.
Are any of the words of Jesus written down, maybe 30 years or so after his death, false? Why should you believe Matthew,Mark, Luke and John? Surely you must mistrust their memory so long after the events? They were just men like you and me after all.
Well – to answer this – one has to assume that the Gospels are as they were from the beginning. Sadly – there are no manuscripts of the NT that I know of that date BEFORE the Catholic Church did their editing with Jerome in the 4th century – older fragments exist – but they are not even close to being complete in any shape or manner. As a matter of honesty – I do believe there are certain ‘additions’ to the Gospels that are revealed when studying Messianic prophecy and writings of the Apostles.
Let us consider the Virgin Birth – since this is a thread about that…
Did the Jews ever look for a virgin born messiah – No. In fact – without the (Greek) Septuagint, we have no such prophecy whatsoever. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, but none of them are watching for a virgin birth.
Does Peter – Paul – John – Jude – or any other writer outside of Matthew or Luke ever mention the Virgin Birth? No. Now I did read that many think this doesn’t mean the Virgin Birth is false – but I ask you – what men trying to share that Jesus is the Son of God would neglect to mention it if they knew about it?
In fact – Paul wrote this about our Savior – – –
Romans 1
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:According to terms of the time – the ‘seed’ always referred to a man – meaning Joseph. Paul did NOT receive his Gospel from men – but from Jesus — did Jesus forget or neglect to share the Virgin Birth with Paul? I don’t think so!
Also – if Mary was bethroned to Joseph – she was considered to be his wife – to believe in the Virgin Birth story – I have to first believe that God committed adultery with Mary – then ordered Joseph and Mary to lie about it… this isn’t of God – but of men who desired to make Jesus equal to pagan gods in the eyes of pagans…
When you compare these things to the fact that the pagans had many so-called virgin born ‘god-men’ since at least the days of Babylon – and you understand how the Catholic Church assimilated pagan beliefs into their religion for the sake of recruitment… you can at least see my perspective of Virgin Birth – even if you disagree with it.
I trust the memory of Matthew Luke Mark and John – but I do not believe their memory has been handed down to us without corruption – which the Holy Spirit reveals – as do the letters of the Apostles – its as simple as that.
if you throw out any then you will have to throw the lot out. Either you accept scripture as totally inspired or none of it is trustworthy. Or do you think we should contact you for an acceptable version of Truth?
Are there any parts of Peter’s letters or those of James and Jude and the other letters of Paul that you find unpalatable? Perhaps some of the OT is a bit squiffy too?Forgive me my friend – but that (if you throw out any then you will have to throw the lot out) is a load of bull. That is actually a theological argument that is used by men who do not have an answer to problems in the Bible as a way of alienating a fellow believer whom they disagree with. If you were to learn that a verse was added to the Bible at any point – would you throw it out? No WAY! You have argued against 1 John 5:7-8 as an addition and a bias of the KJV translators – does that mean the KJV is corrupt and not worthy to be called the Bible? I don’t think so, it is merely another demonstration of men and their imperfection.
It is believed that there are many things added to the Bible, speaking from a manuscript point of view – especially in the New Testament – such as the end of Mark (early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.), or the story of the adulteress in John (early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11). Will you disregard any Bibles including or excluding them? How would you determine which one is the real deal? The only way TO determine it is THROUGH the Holy Spirit.
As far as the ill-fated remark about coming to me for the acceptable version of the truth – all I can say is you should go to God – as I did – to verify the things I am sharing.
Are there any parts of Peter’s letters or those of James and Jude and the other letters of Paul that you find unpalatable?
as I said earlier – I believe 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus and 2 Peter are all forged writings…
We have the words of Peter too recorded as supporting Paul in 2 Peter.Do you not accept his word either?
AS I stated – 2 Peter is not – in my opinion – a true letter written by Peter.
Perhaps some of the OT is a bit squiffy too?
Have you read Jeremiah 8 – specifically verse 8? You read that and tell me how reliable the Old Testament is – and remember after reading it – that Jesus did in fact change many of the laws – such as eye for an eye.
People here have found all of the Word is inspired and have no reason to think otherwise as they have an internal witness supporting every verse as beauty and light. I can only hope you will too but seek the Spirit as there are many false spirit’s that will not be able to show you this truth.
Inspired is VERY different than ‘perfect’. I do believe the Bible is Inspired – but inspiration is not perfection. The Holy Spirit DOES testify that the truth is IN the Bible – but not all that is in the Bible IS the truth. I can only say I know who is teaching me – and I have faith in Him above the all the people who claim the Bible’s perfection. The number of people behind a belief doesn’t make it any more true.
You say the Spirit has guided you to your belief –
I know you mean well – as do I – but I have to tell you this –
I do NOT believe the Holy Spirit has revealed anything to you or anyone else that would claim the Bible is perfect simply because that would be making God a liar – at least in what He has taught me – the idea that the Bible is perfect is as baseless as the Trinity itself, and as people refuse to hear the Holy Spirit about the Trinity – people refuse to hear the Holy Spirit about the problems in the Bible.
When we hold the Bible as perfect – what we do is idolize it – and we actually end up relying on it before the Holy Spirit. In fact – if you are testing the Holy Spirit to the Bible – and you find it doesn’t match the Bible – you admittedly will forsake the Holy Spirit because of the Bible – mistaking it as a false spirit. We are no different than the Muslims with their the Q’uran when we profess that a book is ‘perfect’ despite all the evidence that reveals otherwise.
btw – a false spirit is easily revealed my friend…
1 John 4:2-4
2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the f
lesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.The Spirit that teaches me – the Holy Spirit – readily confesses that Jesus is from God – in this same manner – the Holy Spirit has revealed the Trinity is false to me (and you I assume) – and in the same manner – the Holy Spirit has revealed the Bible is not perfect.
I am going to bed now – and I will pray especially for the words to share with you what He has shown me in a way that you can see what I am saying – but I can tell you this – you wouldn’t be the first person I have encountered who loves and follows Christ but cannot hear what the Holy Spirit has to say about the Bible.
BTW – this doesn’t make me anything more than a follower of Christ – I am not a prophet – or a ‘teacher’ or a messenger – I am simply one who loves Jesus enough to accept what the Holy Spirit TRULY reveals about the Bible as we have it today.
We aren’t to worship a book – but the God of Jesus Christ… His Father and Our Father. The scriptures are about them – but the are not them!
I love you Nick – and I pray regardless of our disagreements – we can find unity in Jesus – God Bless you!”
Virgin Birth of Jesus is another Myth invented by the NT writers for which there is no support in Hebrew scriptures.
Another good post by Malcolm to Nick again;
Hi Nick
This fulfilled the promise of God in Genesis
GENESIS 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.So he was the woman’s seed and in this respect he was born of a woman.
Yet a woman has no seed of herself.
Even when science through meddling manages to altar this fact by tricking the egg in the womb to begin cell division without the sperm, it cannot produce a son. You get a clone of the mother.
In the biblical sense of the word seed, when applied to human life, you are dealing with the sperm, with that which is supplied by the male, to produce life.
So the term woman’s seed is fulfilled in the virgin conception in the which the woman knew no man.
As to Mary having any contribution into the genetics of Jesus.
If Jesus was pre-existent (Jn 17:5, along with other scriptures declare he was, that he existed in a conscious state before his natural birth) then how is it that God now needs to alter that which has already been begotten by God beforehand?
Does he now need to be remade as to his nature? If that which was conceived in Mary was part Mary then it was not “of God” it would be of “God and Mary”.
As human beings born in the natural manner, we share the genes of both our parents.
Both contribute to our makeup in terms of physical attributes and also personality, emotional and intellectual traits.
Both parents contribute to all of these things.
I do not believe for one minute that this was the case with Jesus!Jesus was born with a weak body of flesh, where did the weakness of flesh come from?
It was the earth that was cursed because of Adam’s transgression, not Adam and Eve, the earth was cursed.
As a result, the body is dead because of sin. Why? Because the body is made from the earth, from the dust!Jesus got his body from the nutrients attained in the virgin womb of Mary, even though she was no doubt healthy, was a virgin, and even if every nutrient required to form a healthy human body existed in the womb for him to utilize, his body would still be weak human flesh. Made weak by the curse of the earth.
Hi All, here is my first post on this thread under the name ‘Gollamudi’. I thought it will rekindle the the topic after 13 long years.
Thank you brother Nick,
I want to debate on this topic for some time now. Here I am quoting some of the arguments of a Jew who rejects the Virgin birth of Jesus-” Christianity has been trying for 2000 years to prove the impossible. the hebrew bible does not prophecy the birth of jesus.the hebrew bible belongs to the jews. Christianity cannot exist without the hebrew bible. the christians have deliberately mistranslated hundreds of verses to prove the coming of Jesus.The last time I looked the name of Jesus could not be found in the Hebrew bible.Funny isnt it. The christians have even gone so far as to put the hebrew bible books in a different order than found in the tanach. That is really nerve isnt it? Even calling the hebrew bible the old testament is a deliberate act. i am sure you know why that was done. that also took some nerve.There were a number of errors in your article, but I will only touch on one. The word of parthenos you said meant virgin. what you also forgot to include was that it also means maiden.The most colossal of the blunders of the Septuagint translators, supplemented by the most insidious, persistent and purposeful falsification of text in The King James Bibles, is instanced in the false translation of the Notoriously false pretended “prophecy” of Isaiah 7:14, — frauds which have had the most disastrous and fatal consequences for Christianity.
In the “Gospel according to St. Matthew KJV,” the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, the Jewish Mary yielding to the embraces of the Angel Gabriel to engender Jesus, and backs it up by appeal to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14:
“Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” (Matt. 1:23.)
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa. 7:14)
Isaiah’s original Hebrew, with the mistranslated words underscored, reads: “Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel”; — which, falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. vii, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, “conceived,” which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: “Behold, the young woman has conceived — (is with child) — and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.” The actual Hebrew words, read from right to left, and transliterated, so that the reader who knows no Hebrew may at least catch some words already become familiar, are:
“laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.”
Literally translated into English, in the exact order of the Hebrew words, the “prophecy” reads:
“Therefore shall-give my-lord he [himself] to you sign behold the-maid conceived (is pregnant) and-beareth son and- calleth name-his immanuel.”Here the word harah (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which, as in English, represents past and completed action; there is not the remotest hint of future tense or time. Being the Young Woman is pregnant she is surely not a Virgin. Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. But in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin.
“As early as the second century B.C.,” says the distinguished Hebrew scholar and critic, Salomon Reinach, “the Jews perceived the error and pointed it out to the Greeks; but the Church knowingly persisted in the false reading, and for over fifteen centuries she has clung to her error.” (Orpheus, p, 197.) The truth of this accusation of conscious persistence in known error through the centuries is proved by confession of St. Jerome, who made the celebrated Vulgate translation from the Hebrew into Latin, and intentionally “clung to the error,” though Jerome well knew that it was an error and false; and thus he perpetuated through fifteen hundred years the myth of the “Prophetic Virgin Birth” of Jesus called Christ.
Being criticized by many for this falsification, St. Jerome thus replies to one of his critics, Juvianus: “I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a Virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah”! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.)
So insistent was the criticism, that he was driven to write a book on the subject, in which he makes a very notable confession of the inherent incredibility of the Holy Ghost paternity-story “For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue, that when Isaiah says, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’ the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a Virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH”! (St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary).So it is not some indefinite “a virgin” who 750 years in the future “shall conceive” and “shall bear” a son whose name she “shall call” Immanuel, Jesus; but it was some known and definite young female, married or un-married — but not a “virgin” — who had already conceived and was already pregnant, and who beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel, …who should be the “sign” which “my lord” should give to Ahaz of the truth of Isaiah’s prophecy regarding the pending war with Israel and Syria, as related in Isaiah Chapter 7, and of which the total context is proven in 2 Chronicles 28, as all may read.
“Modern Christian Theologians does not grant that Isaiah 7:14, contains a real prophecy fulfilled in the Virgin Birth of Christ; it must maintain, therefore, that St. Matthew misunderstood the passage when he said: ‘Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, etc.”! (CE. xv, 451.)
Thus is apparent, and confessed, the dishonesty of “Matthew” and of the Church of Christ in perverting this idle, false and falsified text of Isaiah into a “Prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ,” and in persisting in retaining this falsity in their dishonest Bibles as the basis of their own Universities Of Theology unto this day of the Twentieth Century. The Church, full knowing its falsity, yet, clings to this precious lie of The Virgin Birth and all the concatenated consequences. Thus it declares its own condemnation as false.
Based on Isaiah 7:14, Christians claim that the birth of Jesus was predicted long before the event. The verse reads, “Behold, the alma shall conceive and bear a son and shall call him Immanuel [literally, ‘God is with us’].” Although the Hebrew word alma literally means “young woman,” when the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) cites the verse from Isaiah, it translates Alma as “Virgin.” This translation is useful in supporting the contention that the miraculous birth of Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament.
Jewish scholars reject the idea of the Virgin Birth because, they point out, in Isaiah 7:14 the word Alma is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-alma hara, meaning “the alma is pregnant.” Since the present tense is used, it is clear that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.
Jewish scholars, supported by many Christian scholars, have also noted that the word alma in Isaiah 7:14 cannot mean “virgin” because elsewhere when the Bible wants to specify “virgin,” it uses the Hebrew word betula. When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was issued in 1952, the words “young woman,” not the word “Virgin, were used for alma in its translation of Isaiah 7:14. This upset the Fundamentalist Christian community, which maintains that alma in Isaiah refers to the mother of Jesus, who conceived miraculously, without cohabitation with a man. These Fundamentalists expressed their vehement opposition to the new translation by holding burnings of the Revised Edition of the Bible.”
Please submit your comments on these arguments.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamEven as a Christian, I don’t see any necessity of virgin birth since Jesus has to be a child of Adam and to be one like us. I don’t see any mythological virgin birth is required for Jesus to be born sinless. The basic concept of Original sin itself is another mythology. The Oldest Gospel and the latest Gospel writers never believed these myths and even St Paul the earliest recorder of New Testament never claimed any virign birth. Please see the following arguements on virgin birth;
1. The story of the Virgin Birth is found only in the
introductory portion of two of the four Gospels–Matthew and
Luke–and even in these the story bears the appearance of
having been “fitted in” by later writers.2. Even Matthew and Luke are silent about the matter after
the statements in the introductory part of their Gospels,
which could scarcely occur had the story been written by and
believed in by the writers – such action on their part being
contrary to human custom and probability.3. The Gospels of Mark and John are absolutely silent on the
subject; the oldest of the Gospels–that of Mark–bears no
trace of the legend; and the latest Gospel–that of
John–being equally free from its mention.4. The rest of the New Testament breathes not a word of the
story or doctrine. The Book of Acts, generally accepted as
having also been written by Luke, ignores the subject
completely. Paul, the teacher of Luke and the great writer
of the Early Church, seems to know nothing whatever about
the Virgin Birth, or else purposely ignores it entirely – the
latter being unbelievable in such a man. Peter, the First
Apostle, makes no mention of the story or doctrine in his
great Epistles – which fact is inconceivable if he knew of
and believed in the legend. The Book of Revelation is
likewise silent upon this doctrine which played so important
a part in the later history of the Church. The great
writings of the New Testament contain no mention of the
story, outside of the brief mention in Matthew and Luke,
alluded to above.5. There are many verses in the Gospels and Epistles which
go to prove, either that the story was unknown to the
writers, or else not accepted by them. The genealogies of
Joseph are cited to prove the descent of Jesus from David,
which depends entirely upon the fact of Joseph’s actual
parentage. Jesus is repeatedly and freely mentioned as the
son of Joseph. Paul and the other Apostles hold firmly to
the doctrine of the necessity of the Death of Jesus, his
Rising from the Dead and his Ascension into Heaven, etc.
But they had nothing to say regarding any necessity for his
Virgin Birth or the necessity for the acceptance of any
such doctrine. They are absolutely silent on this point,
although they were careful men, omitting no important detail
of doctrine. Paul even speaks of Jesus as “of the seed of
David.” (Rom. 1:3.)6. The Virgin Birth was not a part of the early traditions
or doctrine of the Church – but was unknown to it. And it is
not referred to in the preaching and teaching of the
Apostles, as may have been seen by reference to the Book of
Acts. This book, which relates the Acts and Teachings of the
Apostles, could not have inadvertently omitted such an
important doctrine or point of teaching. It is urged by
careful and conscientious Christian scholars that the
multitudes converted to Christianity in the early days must
have been ignorant of, or uninformed on, this miraculous
event – which would seem inexcusable on the part of the
Apostles, had they known of it and believed in its truth.
This condition of affairs must have lasted until nearly the
second century, when the pagan beliefs began to filter in by
reason of the great influx of pagan converts.7. There is every reason for believing that the legend arose
from other pagan legends, the religions of other peoples
being filled with accounts of miraculous births of heroes,
gods, and prophets, kings and sages.8. That acceptance of the legend is not, nor should it be, a
proof of belief in Christ and Christianity. This view is
well voiced by Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his “New Theology,”
when he says “The credibility and significance of
Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a
barrier between Jesus and the race, and to make him
something that cannot properly be called human…. Like many
others, I used to take the position that acceptance or
non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was
immaterial, because Christianity was quite independent of it;
but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact
it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real
living faith in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is
that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary and had an
uneventful childhood.” The German theologian, Soltau, says,
“Whoever makes the further demand that an evangelical
Christian shall believe in the words ‘conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,’ wittingly constitutes
himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit and the
true Gospel, as transmitted to us by the Apostles and their
school in the Apostolic Age.”And this then is the summing up of the contention between the conservative school of Christian theologians on the one side – and the liberal and radical schools on the other side. We have given you a statement of the positions, merely that you may understand the problem.
I hope these statement may stir us for more critical view of our New Testament.
Peace to all
AdamAPRIL 29, 2009 AT 5:50 AM #151433 REPLY
NickHassanParticipant
Hi GM,
Are you losing faith in the scriptures?
What foundation will you try now?
APRIL 29, 2009 AT 6:40 AM #151435 REPLY
gollamudiParticipant
Hi brother Nick,
I am sorry I am disappointing you by my posts. You might have noticed by this time that I am reading my Bible with a more critical view. I just can’t accept everything available in the Bible as it is. As many in this forum also noticed that our Bible is having many controdictions(holes) on doctrines and concepts. Therefore there is no ending for our lengthy debates. We have to find a solution that either we are wrong or the scriptures. I see that NT is the most vulnerable part of the Bible where Greek and Pagan influence secretly entered into our Bible and separated Christianity from the basic Jewish Monotheism.All these myths like Virgin Birth, Original Sin, Trinity, Preexistence etc. are created by men during earliest centuries of Christianity. I find them utter confusion and failure on understanding the God of the Bible.
Hope you will understand my agony.
Peace to you
AdamFor Jodi…..
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 21 2009,08:25)
Hi not 3,
You do get the point though?
There are a few small areas where evidence can be shown that tampering has occurred.
But some foolishly deny scripture by saying it is mythic, allegorised or drawn from pagan sources without any such proofs.We know scripture is sacred being inspired by the Spirit of God so it needs to be treated with far more respect as mere men have no such rights over the words of God.
Our English translated bibles can hardly be described as sacred text. The translations were not done so through men under God’s Holy Spirit. We know for a fact that the translators were deceptive and disingenuous forcing their own ideologies into the text.
We need to test all things and prove all things, Adam is a dear brother in Christ, who follows such biblical wisdom. He has brought out some very good points, of which we should draw our attention to and consider. I am moved to investigate this topic myself, and search the scriptures thoroughly, Thanks Adam!!
This is same Adam Jodi hope you can recollect…
The So-called “Virgin Birth”
——————————————————————————–
Christians have always argued for Jesus’ virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. Nevertheless, this overlooks that if virgin born, Jesus’ ‘father’ Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of Aaronic descent – Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born, could therefore not be of Davidic descent and could not therefore be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the New Testament statements that Jesus was a descendent of David – Matthew l:l, 12:23, 15:22, Mark l0:47, Romans l:3, Revelation 5:5.
Jesus didn’t take on ‘David’s line’ through Joseph being his ‘adoptive father’ as Rom l:3 makes quite clear, ie. “descended from David according to the flesh”.So there is a problem; Jesus was either of David’s line – but that means he wasn’t virgin born (ie. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception), or he was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was not of the Davidic line) – so he couldn’t have been the Messiah/Christ as the New Testament teaches.
The virgin-birth story is only found in two of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the story, was written after the following 22 chapters by a different author, and added on to the beginning of Luke afterwards. Furthermore the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, eg. (i) Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius (Luke 2:2, 3-7), whilst Matthew has it in the time of Herod, but the rule of these two never coincided or overlapped. The Christian “explanation” for this involving the Ramsay inscription regarding Quirinius as dummvir, is futile.
Both Luke and Matt have other major differences, eg. Matthew says the family fled from Judea immediately to Egypt after the birth (2:4-l4) to avoid Herod and stayed there until he was dead and even on returning, they avoided Judea in the south. However according to Luke, after the birth, the family calm went to Jerusalem in Judea and then up to Galilee (2:21-22,39). It is worthwhile noting that the only census known about (Luke has the journey to Bethlehem because of this) as one in 6 AD. Long after Herod died, and indeed long after Christians claim Jesus lived.
The only reason that Matthew’s author seems to have the virgin-birth story is because he misunderstood an O.T statement (Isaiah 7:l4) that he read as messianic (which it isn’t) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn’t). With regard to Isa 7:l4, it is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz of Judah that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over – 7:l4-17. There is NOTHING messianic about it at all.
As, in this, the child was to be called Emmanuel which means ‘God with us’, but the name ‘Jesus’ (actually, this is Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means ‘Yahweh is salvation’, Jesus was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and did not fulfil this ‘prophesy’; however Matt’s author misunderstood this. As Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went immediately and impregnated his wife, and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria, it appears the Isa 7:l4 prophesy relates to Isaiah’s own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations.
In reality there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah’s saying; he is only saying a woman (or in the Greek – a virgin) would conceive. It doesn’t take too much to realise what has to happen for a virgin to conceive a child. He doesn’t say that a girl who would give birth to the child would still be a virgin after conception. The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint ‘LXX’ – the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the second century BC for the Greek- speaking Jews of the Diaspora – ie. living outside Palestine. It is generally accepted that some parts are very good, but in others it is faulty, eg. Daniel is such a poor translation in the LXX, the Jews wouldn’t even use it.
The Hebrew word in Isa 7:l4 for the woman/’virgin’ is “almah” and means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is rendered ‘virgin’ and there is the additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn’t even necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but ‘denotes fullness or the like – fully developed”. The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin state.
As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Palestinian Jews (ie. the apostles as stated in the Gospels) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors.
Matt’s author couldn’t have been the apostle of that name as he wasn’t a Palestinian Jew (nor either an eyewitness as he had to use Mark as a source to write his Gospel). He also makes other errors, eg. in 27: 9-l0 he says he is quoting Jeremiah but in fact he’s quoting Zechariah ll:l2-l3. It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Palestinian Jews, but either Jewish Christians of the Diaspora or Gentile-Christians. In the case of Mark’s author there has to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical, chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about first cent. Palestine.
But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd. Jesus was supposedly a true Jew – a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David (Matt 21:9), the ‘lion of the tribe of Judah’ (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Testament, according to the Gospels that is, he quoted the GREEK LXX version ! Furthermore, in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support the argument he is making, ie. because of the LXX’s inaccuracies. In Mark 7:l-23 Jesus does this; although it would seem the LXX would support the point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original in fact would not.
So we are asked to believe that Jesus – a true Hebrew Jew – chose to use the Greek translation of the Old Test. and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that he was using a passage that in reality was faulty and in the original would say something completely different, and be quite inappropriate for his argument, but according to the Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish opponents with this – a mistranslation of their own scriptures – and they did not challenge this ! The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus’ brother and leader of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem) in Acts 15 – he uses
the LXX to support his argument, although the Hebrew original says something quite different and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the audience didn’t comment on this !!! Obviously as the writers of the Gospels & Acts were not Palestinian Hebrew-speaking Jews, they had to use the LXX but didn’t realise the errors they were making.
Therefore, the bad news is that firstly the virgin birth is disproved by the Bible itself, and secondly, there is no written eyewitness testimony for Jesus’ supposed life.
The situation is adequately summed up by Professor Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York. (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament):
“Of the 27 books of the
New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul…was not a witness of the historical Jesus.Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing…there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus…” (page 197).
Gadam
Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing…there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus…” (page 197).
Me
John the beloved of the Lord is indeed an eyewitness of the Messiah and he wrote the book of Revelation, the three epistles, and the gospel which are part of the NT.
Hi Berean,
You: John the beloved of the Lord is indeed an eyewitness of the Messiah and he wrote the book of Revelation, the three epistles, and the gospel which are part of the NT.
Me: No the writer of Fourth Gospel was not the eye witness please.
“The phrase the disciple whom Jesus loved (Greek: ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) or, in John 20:2, the disciple beloved of Jesus (Greek: ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iēsous) is used six times in the Gospel of John,[44] but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. John 21:24 states that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple.[citation needed] Although since the 2nd century some people[who?] have taken verse 21:24 to mean that the author of the Gospel of John himself was the eyewitness (namely the disciple whom Jesus loved), other scholars point out that verse 21:24 indicates that the author is someone else than this disciple, because he’s speaking about himself in the first person plural (‘we know’) and the disciple in the third person (‘the disciple… who has written all these things’). Therefore, the author merely claims to have used an earlier written report, allegedly from this disciple, as a source for writing the Fourth Gospel. [45](4:37) Even if the beloved disciple is to be accepted as the author of the Fourth Gospel, however, this still leaves open the question of what the identity of this beloved disciple was”.
Adam: Sorry no such expectation of Virgin born Messiah by the Hebrews please.
Proclaimer: Young girl.
Mike:
Isaiah 7:14… Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.So let us think logically.
In what way would an ordinary woman giving an ordinary birth be considered any kind of a sign from God – since that sort of thing happens thousands of times a day?
The LXX, written 150 years before Jesus was born on earth, translates the Hebrew word from 7:14 (which can refer to a young woman in general, or specifically to a virgin) with a Greek word that explicitly means virgin. How did these 70 Hebrew scholars know to translate it as “virgin” instead of “young woman”? Probably a combination of divine intervention and point #1 above (it wouldn’t be any special sign for a young girl to have a baby).
Matthew makes it clear that “virgin” was intended, even including Mary’s own astonishment that she, a virgin, could conceive without having sex.
So the end result is that it was only a fulfillment of that particular prophecy from YHWH because the one who bore Jesus was a virgin.It would be interesting to find an OT scripture in which that same term was used for a married woman – or one who was no longer a virgin. I suspect it might be similar to our English custom where once a female has sex, it is often said that she is no longer a girl, but has become a woman.
So my question to Adam: In what way would YHWH’s prophecy any kind of a sign if it only required a regular woman to bear a regular son in the regular manner?
Hi Mike, I have shifted your post on Virgin Birth from John 1:1 thread to this main thread on Virgin Birth.
Here are few arguments on your queries on Isaiah 7:14;
“Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE.
The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate.
Given that the language of much of the early Christian church was Greek, many early Christians relied on the Septuagint to locate the prophecies they claimed were fulfilled by Christ. Jews considered this a misuse of Holy Scripture and stopped using the Septuagint altogether; its subsequent history lies within the Christian church. The Greek text, not the original Hebrew, was the main basis for the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and part of the Arabic translations of the Old Testament and has never ceased to be the standard version of the Old Testament in the Greek church. Indeed, St. Jerome used the Septuagint to begin his translation of the Vulgate Old Testament in 382 CE.”
So the so called 70 Hebrew Scholars could translate only the Pentateuch, the first five books of Hebrew Bible in 3 BCE.
The arguments on the scripture supporting Christian Virgin Birth, Isaiah 7:14…..
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later.
If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. They attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Christians insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment.
This notion of a dual prophecy was contrived in order to conceal a stunning theological problem – the seventh chapter of Isaiah does not support Matthew’s virgin birth story. Matthew’s claim that Mary was untouched by a man when she conceived Jesus in unsupported by the Book of Isaiah.
The seventh chapter of Isaiah describes, in great detail, a contemporaneous, traumatic civil war which occurred 2,700 years ago, not the birth of a messiah many centuries later. Simply put, the Book of Matthew ripped Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context. Moreover, if, as Christians argue, the Hebrew word almah can only mean a “virgin,” and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive during Ahaz’s lifetime? Were there two virgin births?
In other words, if Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled on two occasions, who was the first virgin to deliver a baby boy during the lifetime of Isaiah, in about 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries zealously insist that the word almah can only mean a “virgin.” Are they then suggesting that Mary was not the only virgin in history to conceive and give birth to a son?
Furthermore, if Christians argue that the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, how do the verses that follow, Isaiah 7:15-16, apply to Jesus where the prophet continues to discuss this lad? The following passages state,
Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; 16 for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned. (Isaiah 7:15-16)
If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures……
Hope this will clear your doubts on Isaiah 7:14.
Hi Gadam,
Sorry, I don’t have the time to go back and read through everything so I hope that you don’t mind starting things from here. If there is something I say that you have clearly addressed in a specific post please give me the post number and I am happy to go back and read it.
The RCC turned the glory of Jesus into shame, they turned him into a false god. They turned him into an image that aligned with other false gods. It is not the being born of a virgin that I have a problem with as with God all things are possible, he closes wombs and opens them up and likewise God visits and a woman can conceive, 1 Sam 2:21, “And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the LORD.”
Chapter 1 of Matthew tells me that Joseph is Jesus’s biological father. If Jesus was born of a virgin, such would be by the power of God’s Spirit, where God visited Mary and she conceived Joseph’s son.
Today, even man has the power to take a seed from a man and cause a virgin to conceive.
Like I said, it’s not the virgin birth itself that I have an issue with, it is the false image of Jesus and how they use the virgin birth to try and support that image.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
