Virgin birth

[lawrenceofisrael]

I´d like to hear some thoughts from you about the virgin birth, whether you believe in it or not. Please do also provide arguments to prove your opinion. The reason im asking this is that i met a brother recently and his wife who do not believe in it. Now i´d like to hear some thoughts to build an opinion for myself.

May peace and blessings be upon us all

[zionlion]

I believe.
If I believe that Elohim created man from the dust of the earth and woman from a rib, then it's really not too hard to believe in a virgin birth.

Elohim is supernatural and the things He does are not of this realm. Faith is the real issue here.

Elohim bless.

[ginny]

I can't understand a question like this... If it is in the Word of God, why would I not believe it? I believe everything in the Bible. If I claim to believe anything in the Bible, I believe everything. I don't understand.

Or maybe your friends are suggesting it is a simile or allegory or parable or something?

My backup for my belief is that it is in the Word of God.

[lawrenceofisrael]

Yeah i know and i don´t see any problem with it as well. The brother however said that this was added to the scripture by the catholic church to invent their own story of mary. He said that the prophecy which is being talked of in the gospel about the virgin begetting a boy is in the tenach in a completely different context and thus cannot be about Yeshua.

[tonga]

Obviously I don't believe in it, but why is it important that Mary
was a virgin? Is it to preclude the possibility of original sin
(which I also don't believe in)?

[Dogface Of Judah]

Hello, i was hoping someone could show a link or tell us the reasons for not believing in the virgin birth. I know of only the pagan aspect but have not heard anything else. No hurry.

Well, what the opt said.

Ed

[Chizuk Emunah]

It's been a long, long time since I've posted here, but I saw this and wanted to comment.

Clearly the story of the virgin birth was a later redaction to the 'gospels'. When read in context, it is quite clear that the prophecy of Yeshayahu never mentioned a virgin but a young woman, and was intended for King Ahaz. And in fact, this prophecy unfolded before the King's eyes. So how can a prophecy that was already fulfilled apply to the future?

[Mark]

Welcome back Chizuk,

It's a difficult argument that a prophecy is no longer relevant because its fulfillment has already taken place. This same understanding must have astonished the disciples of Messiah Yeshua when He said, "When you see the abomination of desolations..." when to their understanding it had already taken place.

It is also a self-destructive course we take in our hermaneutical process when we start deciding which elements of the text are valid and which are not. There are those within Judaism who, over the centuries have argued that we should rip out the book of Deuteronomy since it was obviously not penned by Moses' hand. Yet, it remains. I tend to believe that God is big enough and powerful enough to preserve and protect His written Word- that is said after having read (cover to cover) some pretty awful and self-serving translations.

I've asked a number of times, if the Isaiah passage is not referring to a virgin, what is its significance? Why is it there? The best answers that are given to me simply renders the text incontinent. Here's the sign you shall see, this kid's mom is going to be young and he's going to have a lot of aliases... I'm sorry, what is the sign again?

It is translated from the Hebrew into the Greek Septuigent as "virgin". Since the language was agreed upon by the highest Jewish scholars of the day, the argument against the virgin birth post dates that, at least as a popular understanding- most likely as a denial of the Messiahship of Yeshua, though why that issue seems at all conclusive proof escapes me.

The "virgin" interpretation begs us to refer back to Genesis 3 and ask, why did Adonai speak directly to Eve concerning her offspring? Why would the promise to her be specific, not including her husband?

[Chizuk Emunah]

Thanks Mark. It looks like you're the only original mod left.

From a Jewish POV, it's pretty clear which texts are valid and which are not. The christian church fought over that for a long time before the settled on the current content of the NT. If a person claims to be following Judaism, but does not believe in the validity of the , then clearly they are not practicing Judaism.

The significance is quite clear really, if you read the entire passage in it's context. King Ahaz was concerned about his enemies to the North (Israel and Aram) making another another attempt to conquer Yerushalayim. So the sign given by Yeshayahu haNavi was that before the child (whose birth was being foretold) should know the difference between good and evil; the land of the two kings would be made desolate. Nothing about a future Mashiach here.

[Mark]

I apologize for scoffing, but "from a Jewish point of view" is an over-simplified rhetoric. It was within Judaism that the suggestion had come to reject Deuteronomy. Samaritanism is a sect within Judaism that dismisses all of Tanakh as authoritative except the first five books. The book of Esther is not accepted by all within Judaism as being authoritative; and many individual rabbis have suggested that Isaiah and Ezekiel are fictitious insertions. When you speak of "the Jewish point of view" you are speaking of that point if view with which you have yourself chosen to accept, be it the majority or not.

Where do you draw the line at dismissing the texts that you either don't understand or don't line up consistently with what you believe? Is this any different than those who deny the entire New Testament as credible? or those who deny the relevance of the for themselves? While this has become a commonly accepted practice within both Judaism and Christianity, I can't accept it for myself. I would much rather admit to being in error having been deceived by the text that Adonai has provided and preserved than to be in error because I have dismissed it.

[lawrenceofisrael]

I absolutely agree with Mark. This prophecy was fulfilled already but the feast days of the Lord for example pesach were fulfilled at their times and still had a meaning concerning Yeshua. There is really no scriptural argument that speaks against the virgin birth.

May peace and blessings be upon us all.

[lawrenceofisrael]

Yeh well the feast days were both commandments and a foreshadowing of events in life of moshiach. Also we could use the psalmwords eli eli lama sabachtani. They had a meaning in the time they were recorded and had a meaning at yeshua´s crucifiction.

May peace and blessings be upon us all.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I apologize for scoffing, but "from a Jewish point of view" is an over-simplified rhetoric. It was within Judaism that the suggestion had come to reject Deuteronomy. Samaritanism is a sect within Judaism that dismisses all of Tanakh as authoritative except the first five books. The book of Esther is not accepted by all within Judaism as being authoritative; and many individual rabbis have suggested that Isaiah and Ezekiel are fictitious insertions. When you speak of "the Jewish point of view" you are speaking of that point if view with which you have yourself chosen to accept, be it the majority or not.

Amein.

I am astonished that there are those here on the forum who teach against the virgin birth of Messiah Yeshua. Mark had some great words of wisdom to share on this subject that people should revisit.

Also, here are two articles that people should consider on this subject:

www.synagoguechm.com/articles/paganparallelstovirginbirth.pdf

www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/VirginBirthTR.pdf

These articles should clear up much of the confusion.

Now, for a few of my own thoughts and why I cannot fathom how one can believe that Yeshua is The Messiah, believe that the Apostolic scriptures are inspired and not believe that Yeshua was born of a virgin and that this is not at least what was partly intended in prophecy. Also keep in mind that this is one of the truths that this forum stands for and if someone is simply here to prove this doctrine wrong without being willing to listen will not have a long stay here on the forums. For to teach otherwise is one of the worst forms of blasphemy that I can think of. Why is this? And, why am I so passionate about this subject?

It starts with Mattityahu (Matthew) 1:18-20. It states;

"Here is how the birth of Yeshua the Messiah took place. When his mother Miryam was engaged to Yosef, before they were married, she was found to be pregnant from the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). Her husband-to-be, Yosef, was a man who did what was right; so he made plans to break the engagement quietly, rather than put her to public . But while he was thinking about this, an angel of HaShem appeared to him in a dream and said, "Yosef, son of David, do not be afraid to take Miryam home with you as your wife; for what has been conceived in her is from the Ruach HaKodesh.

We will stop there for a moment. If you claim that Yeshua was not born of the Ruach Hakodesh, as the scriptures clearly state, than you make Yeshua a bastard (heaven forbid) and He is not Messiah and you who claim faith in him and his sacrifice are still in your sins, and are most miserable of men. What is taught in 1Corinthians 15:17 is true of this situation as well. It states;

"and if the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins."

Sha'ul could have just as easily stated, "and if Yeshua was a bastard (heaven forbid), your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins"

How pitiful are those whom truly believe this!

Let us continue to read in Mattityahu (Matthew) 1:21-23 as the Angel speaks to Yosef;

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, because he will save his people from their sins." All this happened in order to fulfill what HaShem had said through the prophet, "The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him `Immanu El."

You have to deny the inspiration of the Apostolic scriptures to believe that Yeshua was not born of a virgin. And, if this is the case, you cannot truly be an honest believer in Yeshua as the Messiah. Can you see why I am astonished at some of you??

If we continue to read in Mattityahu it states in verses 24-25 it states, "When Yosef awoke he did what the angel of HaShem had told him to do -- he took Miryam home to be his wife, but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Yeshua."

If Yosef didn't have sexual relations with Miryam to be the genetic father of Yeshua, than who was his father??? To teach anything other than the virigin birth is to say Yeshua was a bastard (Heaven forbid). How dare any of you say such a thing of our Master! You should be ashamed. This is a great heresy to Messianic Judaism.

Furthermore, the writer of the book of Luke claims the same thing. Luke 1:34-35 states;

"How can this be," asked Miryam of the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered her, "The Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) will come over you, the power of Ha`Elyon will cover you. Therefore the holy child born to you will be called the Son of God."

Again, for further insight read the following articles:

www.synagoguechm.com/articles/paganparallelstovirginbirth.pdf

www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/VirginBirthTR.pdf

Any other comments before we close this thread?

Reuel

[Dogface Of Judah]

Well said Reuel and Mark, well said indeed.

Let me break out the guitar.


An angel came to see
in a city of Galilee,
a humble Jewish girl
G-d used to change the world.

She had never known a man
still according to G-d's plan,
all the righteous would believe
that a virgin did conceive.




On a side note:

After all the things He done
to prove He was G-d's Son,
crucify Him they said
and for our sins He bled.

Yet He said He would do
three days and nights were through,
Praise G-d!
The greatest sign He left mankind
was an empty tomb.




With G-d all things are possible. And i believe with child-like faith in the virgin birth. Some would say the term "virgin" should be "young woman". I wonder if a young woman can be a virgin at the same time? To me they both in this case mean the same thing.

virgin=young woman
young woman=virgin

But that's just me.

Carry on!

Mutt

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Dogface,

You make a good point.