Yeshua's Virgin Birth.

[Dogface Of Judah]

It all comes down to if you believe the Bible is The Word of God or not. And i mean every word, Old and New, can't have one without the other. Attacking the validity of the Holy Bible is not to smart.

Mat 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.


Matthew 24:35 -- "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

2) Matthew 5:18 -- "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." If Jesus says that not one jot or tittle [period or punctuation mark] shall pass away until His Second Coming is accomplished, then how dare any mere men eliminate words which the Lord still considers valid?

3) Deuteronomy 4:2 -- "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

4) Deuteronomy 12:32 -- "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

5) Proverbs 30:5-6 -- "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Did you notice that God calls a person a liar who adds to his word?

6) Revelation 22:18-19 -- "18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Exd 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Deu 5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Question?
Our Lord and Saviour is angered by His name being taken in vain, how much more is he angered by taking his entire word in vain.

Ed

[NaildWithHim]

dogfaceofjudah said:

It all comes down to if you believe the Bible is The Word of God or not. And i mean every word, Old and New, can't have one without the other. Attacking the validity of the Holy Bible is not to smart.

.

[Mark]

I'm sorry but it simply IS true that the word almah is tranlated by Jewish scholars as partaireos in the Septuigent. You seem to be placing our entire position on the one prophecy. This is not the case. The implication is that within the cultural definition of the word almah, it is presumed that she would be a virgin. This is a presumption that has carried itself into the early 20th Century. Only until recently, one would assume that when I said "teen-ager" I would be speaking about a virgin. However, it is possible to be a virgin at any age.

The logic you are using is the same as the argument that Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale; but by a fish. newsflash: when the book of Jonah was written, a whale was classified as a fish. In the clutural context, unless specifically stated otherwise, the young woman (almah) would have been a virgin.

[Mark]

I'm sorry, Nailed; but I goofed. I attempted to edit a comment out of your last post; but I seem to have killed the whole thing. That wasn't my intention. However, please refrain from statements that deride other members of the forum. The post was good, except for one statement. I apologize for what may easily appear to be censorship of your position.

Mark

[Dogface Of Judah]

Apologies, I can be a smart*** sometimes, nothing personal. I will refrain from that here on out.

Ed

[NaildWithHim]

mark said:

I'm sorry but it simply IS true that the word almah is tranlated by Jewish scholars as partaireos in the Septuigent.

Your still missing the point Mark. The LXX is NOT the final authority on the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew text clearly uses the word 'almah'. Again, if the Hebrew scribes wanted to emphatiacally state that the young woman in question was a virgin, they would have chosen the word 'bethulah'. There would have been no question that she had not 'known' a man. However, they did NOT choose that word. And for good reason.

Even so, if she had been a virgin in the text it still wouldn't mean that she concieved of the Ruach HaKodesh. A virgin can stay a virgin up to the time of conception even though she had known a man. A virgin conceiving isn't a miracle by any stretch of the imagination. How many times have virgins concieved after their very first time of sexual intercourse?

I'm sorry, but coming to the conclusion that a virgin would concieve from the Ruch HaKodesh when reading Yeshayahu 7:14 is jumping to conclusions. One MUST have presupposition in order for that meaning to make any sense at all.

Are you aware of the fact that if this concept of the virgin birth is true, that makes YHVH an adulterer? Maryiam was betrothed to Yoseph.

Is not YHVH subject to His own ?


Shalom
Naild

[messimom]

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Aside from the word used for "virgin" argument happening here there is something else that verse 14 gives us. This is a sign. What kind of sign would it be for a young woman who has had sex to get pregnant? A sign from the Lord concerning the salvation of the WORLD would probably be a large sign. Such as a virgin getting pregnant.

Naild said:

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

The Jewish Rabbi's have also consistently maintained that Yeshua is not the savior. Does that make them right?

Let me ask why no one in this discussion has brought up the understanding that it is THROUGH the Ruach, directly through the power of YHVH, and NOT the seed of man that Yeshua was able to overcome the power of sin and death. Isn't that a fairly foundational understanding of how Yeshua was the only one in history able to overcome sin??? If Yeshua was brought forth by the seed of man and the egg of woman combining, then he would also carry the original sin in his blood (so to speak). But it is through his miraculous conception that he is not under HaSatan's thumb. It is only by this that Yeshua could be our atoning sacrifice. Our savior. The Word made flesh.

Naild said

Are you aware of the fact that if this concept of the virgin birth is true, that makes YHVH an adulterer? Maryiam was betrothed to Yoseph.

Is not YHVH subject to His own ?

How does it make YHVH an adulterer. Where and when did the sexual act occur? For every couple who uses a sperm donor to conceive a child, does this make the wife and some unknown man adulterous? Come on.

Shalom

Messimom

[NaildWithHim]

messimom said:

Aside from the word used for "virgin" argument happening here there is something else that verse 14 gives us. This is a sign. What kind of sign would it be for a young woman who has had sex to get pregnant? A sign from the Lord concerning the salvation of the WORLD would probably be a large sign. Such as a virgin getting pregnant.

You should probably read the rest of the passage. A child being born is the least of the 'sign' given.

The Jewish Rabbi's have also consistently maintained that Yeshua is not the savior. Does that make them right?

Of course not, but we are not discussing that issue are we?

Let me ask why no one in this discussion has brought up the understanding that it is THROUGH the Ruach, directly through the power of YHVH, and NOT the seed of man that Yeshua was able to overcome the power of sin and death.

Yes, He overcame sin by the power of His Father's Ruach HaKodesh, but NOT because of any virgin birth nonsense-

(John 3:34)
For He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him.

Yeshua recieved the Ruach HaKodesh without measure, being COMPLETELY filled. He was annointed above His fellows. He also said time and again that it was the Ruach HaKodesh who spoke and did all those miracles, not Himself-

(John 14:10)
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

How does it make YHVH an adulterer. Where and when did the sexual act occur? For every couple who uses a sperm donor to conceive a child, does this make the wife and some unknown man adulterous? Come on.

Shalom

Messimom

Messimom, please show me one single instance in all of Scripture where a "sperm donor" is used? What makes you think that YHVH condones this act? On the contrary, I think He reviles it. Is He not the CREATOR alone? Using Torahless actions to justify your own theology, or to discredit someone else's isn't very wise.




Shalom
Naild

[Dogface Of Judah]

Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Luk 1:29 And when she saw [him], she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

;)Explain away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed

[Rick]

Cool, you beat me to it DFoJ, I had the same verses in mind.

Let the Word speak for itself

Rick

[Yitzchak]

naildwithhim said:

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?

Naild,

This is the 3rd post on this thread, in which you answer Mark's question concerning your evidence that the virgin birth did not take place.

You make the statement that there is much evidence, and so far you have posted nothing but your own opinions. In addition, I assume that there is a point you are trying to make.

First, I would ask that you present your evidence in detail from scripture, and then would you please let us know your point in proving that there is no virgin birth.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Dogface Of Judah]

Yes the Bible sais Yeshua was born from a virgin. I quess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

If the Bible said tha Yeshua was born of a tree, He would have born from a tree, it's that easy. (well at least for me that is)

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

See above for more scriptures about G-d's word.

Ed

[inawe]

DFoJ writes : " I quess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."


Bill?

Bill Clinton? Is that you?

No offence DFoJ...I just couldn't resist.



still,
inawe

[Dogface Of Judah]

It's all good, got a good chuckle when i typed it. I was going to use the 70 Rabbi saying but used ol Bill instead.

Ed

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

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 have not been able to check all the posts of late and just came across this one. I am not pleased. Blake, that was your last warning as it has been one of many you have ignored as you have been blatantly violating the forum rules you agreed to when first joining. Please reread them if you are confused. Your forum privledges have been removed to do your consistant attacks against the writings of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant writings).

Naild,

You are also in violation of the forum rules as you are advocating something unscriptural and are also attacking what we hold as the scriptures. This will be your last warning. Please reread the forum rules posted on every section of the forum here before you make another post.

As to the subject matter, Mark and many others have made excellent points and of which many scholars support. All the writings of the Brit Chadashah are enspired by Adonai Himself and those whom wish to make a habit of attacking those writings will have a very short stay here. Honest questions is one thing...but, this is -clearly- not what is taking place here. Unless one feels comfortable with being a false witness, please show a little respect for the forum rules you agreed to before you joined. Unless someone (other than people whom particularly wish to violate the forum rules) has something to say on this subject, please send me a personal message and I will re-open the thread.

Shalom,

Reuel