Yeshua's Virgin Birth.

[NaildWithHim]

Fact or fiction?

[Mark]

What biblical evidence is there to suggest that the virgin birth is did not occur exactly as prophesied?

[NaildWithHim]

Shalom Mark,

There seems to be much evidence that the virgin birth was not prophesied in Yeshayahu at all. And that Mattityahu 1:18-25 was inserted into the text.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Chizuk Emunah]

I'd be curious as to the sources of the evidence. Do they come from the Pesh'tta or from an other source?
Naild, could you give more details please?

[Mishkan]

naildwithhim said:

There seems to be much evidence that the virgin birth was not prophesied in Yeshayahu at all. And that Mattityahu 1:18-25 was inserted into the text.

What are your thoughts on this?

I would also be curious about the sources that lead you to this conclusion.

In my opinion, Isaiah 7:14 is an excellent jumping-off point for discussing the whole nature of rabbinic midrash and the PaRDeS rules for Biblical interpretation. Us Westerners have become used to thinking "prophecy" means, "The text spoke of this event, and no other." But I think most of what we call "prophecy" in the Messianic Writings is more along the lines of midrashic application.

Anyone interested in taking this turn with me?

Shalom,

Mishkan

[Mark]

It's noteworthy that though the Hebrew word "almah" is used in Isaiah 7:14 which means young woman as opposed to "betulah" which means virgin. However, at least in the Scriptures, "almah" never refers to a woman who has had any form of sexual relationship. Consistently the "young women" have also been "virgins." It is also noteworthy when the Jewish scholars translated the Tanakh into Greek (the Septuigent), "almah" was translated "partaireos" which is the word "virgin".

see www.seedofabraham.net/virgin.html

My limited research indicates that the dismissal of the virgin birth as a sign of the coming Messiah did not gain any momentum or popularity until Rashi in 1000 AD. At the same time, the "Suffering Savior" doctrine vanished from Jewish thought to be replaced with a "Suffering Israel".

All, of course, as a focused effort to dismiss Yeshua as the Messiah.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Anyone interested in taking this turn with me?

I'd definitely be interested in what you have to say...

[Blake]

While I am inclined towards the idea of a suffering messiah, the idea of a virgin birth causes certain problems.

Many pagan demigods were born of virgins and the idea of a virgin birth of messiah might well be a syncretism with various pagan mystery cults.
Also, if Yosef was not the literal father of Rebi Yehoshua that would make the Messiah a Levite through Maryam (remember, her cousin was Elizabeth), not a Yehudi which would mean he was not a descendant of Melekh Dawid.

Its also known that many of the Jewish followers of Moschiach among the Ebionites and Nazarenes explicitly denied the virgin birth, perhaps giving us a glimpse into the beliefs of the Jeruselum Community of Believers and the Primitive Followers of the Way.

[Mark]

There are lots of things that the pagan-occult teaches that rings of similarity to Scripture; but that ought not lead us to question Scripture.

While Mary's cousin (or aunt) may have been a Levite, there is still room for Mary to have been of the tribe fo Judah, if her father were of Judah. There is strong evidence that this was the case, since the angel spoke of her son being the off-spring of David (Luke 1:32). It is arguable that if Mary's Mom had no brothers, that the right of the cohen would pass through her seed, even if he were a Yehudaite. This would make Yeshua equally legitimate as both priest and king (Numbers 27:3-8).

The argument that Joseph was not REALLY his father holds no biblical nor cultural support. Yeshua was fully amd legally recognized as the son of Joesph (Matthew 13:55) even though rumors that he was not the biological father already existed (Sanhedrin 67a, Chagigah 4b ) . To dismiss this would be also to dismiss Samuel as the legitimate leader of Israel during his time.

[Natan-El]

I'm inclined to agree with Mark concerning the word 'almah. Not only was the Septuagint written some 200 years before Yeshua's birth, but here we have a word that, if we interpret Scripture with Scripture cannot be taken as anything less than virgin. The only other place in where it is found is referring to Rivkah (Rebecca) before she ever met Yitz'chak (Isaac).

There's also a reason why the genealogy in Mattityahu chapter 1 is there, and I don't think it was to just take up space. It was put there to be a reminder to any who doubt his legitimate claim to the throne of David, not to mention fulfilling prophecy in doing so.

[Blake]

Personally, I hold the "New Testament" to the same standard I hold other extra-scriptural literary works such as the Talmud. There is much truth in the books, but again there is also much error. The "NT" is a Greek Hellenized collection of literary works most of which were not penned down until much much later after the events they record. The "NT" wasn't cononized until 397 CE, that is long after the great apostasy of 135 CE in which the Paquid of the Netzarim was usurped by a Roman Bishop. After this time the "Church" became a Gentile Mystery Religion filled with pagan and gnostic syncretisms. The need for a canon of a "New Testament" is a result of replacement theology. The earliest followers of Yeshua Ha Moschiach had no need of a "New Testament" or new groups of scripture because all of the Teacher's ideas were derived from the Tanach. Now, some of the Hellenistic text was based on earlier Hebrew and Aramaic texts (with largescale redactions and interpolations) which can be largly reconstructed from the Greek text but I cannot except any Greek text as Scripture, even the Aramaic Peshitta is a translation of the those Hellenistic texts.

I just wanted to make that known, so my arguments can be better understood.

[NaildWithHim]

natanel said:

I'm inclined to agree with Mark concerning the word 'almah. Not only was the Septuagint written some 200 years before Yeshua's birth, but here we have a word that, if we interpret Scripture with Scripture cannot be taken as anything less than virgin.

The manuscipt your referring to does not include the book of Isaiah. The LXX of 250 B.C was the only. The first 5 books of Moshe.

[Mark]

Still, the point is that "almah" has consistently been understood to be a virgin, even among Jewish scholars until Rashi.

[NaildWithHim]

mark said:

Still, the point is that "almah" has consistently been understood to be a virgin, even among Jewish scholars until Rashi.

That's simply not true Mark. And if one does an HONEST examination of the word as it relates to the passage, nowhere is a "virgin birth" concept insinuated. If the scribes wanted to emphatically state that this "young woman" was indeed a virgin, they would have chosen the word 'bethulah'. However, they did not.

The Jewish Rabbi's have consistently maintained the position that this prophecy refers specifically to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz.

[NaildWithHim]

blake said:

Its also known that many of the Jewish followers of Moschiach among the Ebionites and Nazarenes explicitly denied the virgin birth, perhaps giving us a glimpse into the beliefs of the Jeruselum Community of Believers and the Primitive Followers of the Way.

That sounds interesting Blake. Do you have some online sources for this information?

Good post by the way.