Yosef_m
New Member
We have overcome by the name and the blood of the Lamb of G-d
Posts: 24
|
Post by Yosef_m on May 10, 2007 18:34:52 GMT -8
shalom:
I was wandering, what do you guys think of yeshuas supposed virgin birth?
do you believe in it?? do you dismiss it?? is it another way that christians have used to manipulate the truth of yeshua? is isaia 7:14 really talking about the virgin birth?
Personally i dont believe in the virgin birth, not only because it is a strictly pagan myth, but also because every single argument christians have to back it up is completelly ilogical, and the only verse they alude to it is just misquoted.
so what do you believe? and if you believe in it, i would aprecciente some evidence to back it up.
shalom in yeshua
Yosef
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on May 10, 2007 20:55:49 GMT -8
Shalom Yosef,
Yes, we do believe in the virgin birth of Yeshua The Messiah as the scripture does state, and it is not a "pagan myth".
The scripture says thus,
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el."
- Yeshayahu (Isa.) 7:14
The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "almah". Yes, it can mean young girl, but in almost all cases in a Jewish culture a young girl is a "virgin". Besides, what would be a "sign" or what would be miraculous (out of the ordinary) about a young woman giving birth? It happens all the time and every day around the world. Why would this be a set-apart sign? The answer is that it wouldn't be unless the young girl was a virgin. Now, perhaps you don't hold the writings of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant) to be the inspired word of Elohim, but the B'surot Tovot (Good News) also supports that Miryiam was also a "almah" in the sense of a virgin whom had not yet known man...
"Now the birth of Yeshua the Messiah was like this; for after his mother, Miriam, was engaged to Yosef, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Yosef, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Yosef, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Miriam, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins." Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanu'el;" which is, being interpreted, "God with us."
- Mattityahu (Matt.) 1:18-23
Now, unless you claim to be more fluent in Hebrew than the writer of the book of Mattitayahu (Matt.), I would be a little more humble in your claims. Furthermore, if you are questioning the validity of the scriptures as found in the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant) you are in violation of the forums rules. I would caution how you proceed. Please read the forum rules once again before your respond.
Shalom aleychem,
Reuel
|
|
Yosef_m
New Member
We have overcome by the name and the blood of the Lamb of G-d
Posts: 24
|
Post by Yosef_m on May 11, 2007 13:25:59 GMT -8
shalom:
I apologize if i sounded like i didint take the Brit Chadashah as the breathing word of g-d, because i do, i just wanted to get the opinion of the forum members on this subject.
You see, i come from a messianic congregation that rejects the virgin birth, so i wanted to know the opinion of other messianic believers on the subject.
Again i apologize for sounding heretical, but im new with the messianic movement, and i think i should ask all the questins that come to my mind, just to learn more, not to cause trouble.
B´H´
Yosef
|
|
|
|
Post by messimom on May 13, 2007 14:04:36 GMT -8
I think this debate is funny for 2 reasons. One being that our whole salvation is dependant on FAITH, why get caught up on this issue of faith? And two, the virgin birth makes perfect sense logistically. Yeshua entered the world physically through his mom, therefore making him human and qualifying for an exact substitution/sacrifice for all of us other humans. But, he also is directly of the father, therefore not inheriting that original sin passed down through Adam, allowing him to defeat HaSatan and fulfill  to its completion. And as we accept Yeshua, we are adopted in- receiving all rights and priviliges any natural born child would have, therefore allowing US to defeat HaSatan also. It makes perfect sense to me. Shalom Messimom |
|
Yosef_m
New Member
We have overcome by the name and the blood of the Lamb of G-d
Posts: 24
|
Post by Yosef_m on May 13, 2007 15:55:32 GMT -8
I think this debate is funny for 2 reasons. One being that our whole salvation is dependant on FAITH, why get caught up on this issue of faith? And two, the virgin birth makes perfect sense logistically. Yeshua entered the world physically through his mom, therefore making him human and qualifying for an exact substitution/sacrifice for all of us other humans. But, he also is directly of the father, therefore not inheriting that original sin passed down through Adam, allowing him to defeat HaSatan and fulfill to its completion. And as we accept Yeshua, we are adopted in- receiving all rights and priviliges any natural born child would have, therefore allowing US to defeat HaSatan also. It makes perfect sense to me. Shalom Messimom Shalom: 1. Ive learned that blind faith is not a good thing, so saying "believe just because thats the way it is" wont work for me. 2. Now that sounds actually reasonable, so you would say this is what makes yeshua "fully G-d and fully human" at the same time? B´H´ Yosef |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on May 13, 2007 20:37:32 GMT -8
Shalom Yosef,
Rereading your original post you can see how I came to my conclusions in my last post.
Good. But, perhaps the Messianic congregation you attend should teach the B'surot Tovot (Good News) in it's fullness...
"Now the birth of Yeshua the Messiah was like this; for after his mother, Miriam, was engaged to Yosef, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Yosef, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Yosef, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Miriam, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins." Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanu'el;" which is, being interpreted, "God with us."
- Mattityahu (Matt.) 1:18-23
Yes, we want you to be able to ask honest questions and learn. But, statements such as the below are not apropriate ways to ask questions with the intent to learn...
We look forward to your continued participation and learning here on the forum.
Shalom in the name of Yeshua our Messiah,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 14, 2007 3:35:45 GMT -8
When Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, creating the Srptuigent, in Isaiah 7:14 they translated the Hebrew word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos" which is specifically a virgin. It wasn't until our friend Rashi came along that the prophetic nature of Isaiah 7:14 was redefined.
Yet, if you think about it, the denial of the virgin birth doesn't disprove anything! The argument that Yeshua could not have been the Messiah because Isaiah 7:14 isn't talking about a virgin simply removes a necessary qualification- any descendant of Judah born during the second temple period who performed miracles and died sacrificially at the hand of gentiles could have potentially been the Messiah. The removal of a qualification does not disqualify Yeshua, as anti-missionaries seem to claim.
Yet, to read Isaiah 7:14 logically, as Reuel pointed out, the only conclusion is that the Messiah must have been born a virgin. The definition of almah was not a point of contest until after the Christain faith began to blossom and rabbinical authorities needed to find some way to refute the evidences in the Tanakh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on May 14, 2007 19:25:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on May 15, 2007 19:48:00 GMT -8
Shalom Nachshon,
Great article! Thank you for sharing it. Perhaps you can share excerpts from the article for our readers to read here on the forum.
Todah b'shem Yeshua HaMashiach,
Reuel
|
|
Tyler
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by Tyler on Aug 15, 2009 12:00:46 GMT -8
It had to be a virgin birth. It was prophesied in the Beginning in Eden that the "seed of the woman" would crush the serpent's head. This is what God Himself said to Eve - "the seed of the woman."
Other than what God said to Eve, Scripture never speaks of women having "seed". It is always men who have seed (in fact the word "sperm" means "seed").
If Miriam wasn't a virgin - meaning Yeshua had a human father - then Yeshua would be the seed of a man and not of a woman.
But it is the "seed of a woman" that crushes the Devil, that ancient Serpent. In biological terms this means conception without sperm... a.k.a. virgin birth.
And just in case anyone asks, "Couldn't Miriam have conceived miraculously and not have been a virgin?" No. There could be no room for any doubt. She had to be a woman who did not "know any man".
Settle it once and for all. Read Luke 1:34. Miriam asks Gabriel how it's possible that she could have a baby since she "did not know any man"?
Rejecting Christian Tradition just because it is "Christian" is a foolish thing to do. Especially because many times they've gotten it right - as is the case with the doctrine of the virgin birth of Mashiach.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 28, 2009 10:05:10 GMT -8
if i hear another statement like this from you reuel, i might tear my hair out. so i need you to clarify something for me. is this forum a place to figure out the truth? or is is a place where we discuss topics with the preconcieved idea of the truth? i have a problem with the latter, but if i am supposed to assume certain things as truth before i post, than i will understnd your almost extreme harshness about the "infallibiltiy" of the Nazarean codicil. I personally dont belive that, but i have not expressed the reasons for that opinoo, and very rarely (maybe 2 posts, counting this one) have i ever expressed the opinion itself. but in some ways i think you are being WAY to harsh with it. There is proof that certain parts of the Nazarean Codicil were not actually originally parts of the Nazarean codicil (like the story of the woman caught in adultry). but, if i discussed this on a thread exfcept to you directly (and maybe even then), than i could possibly have been banned. I dont understand that at all. i really need clarification. sorry if i offended you, but i feel like i need to take a defensive position, becuse you seem to attack anyone who has a different opinion than you on the Nazarean Codicil! as for the subject of the Virgin Birth: I do not believe in the Virgin birth, NOT because i dont think the Nazarean Codicil is not inspired, but becuse i think that the infancy narratives can be interpreted a different way. it is NOT the text that i disagree with, but the interpretation. her e is an article i wrote on the virgin birth giving a few different interpretations of the infancy narratives other than a virginal conception. Here is is: share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=578ea8ac-f576-496a-9c85-f7fd7591810cit does not assume that the Nazarean Codicil is wrong in any way, but again, it does assume that there are other interpretations of the infancy narratives than the Virgin birth, also, i believe that Nazarean Codicil to point to God, but i dont think that it necessarily needs to do that through historical accounts. I think that it can point to God through allegories and Theologoumenons (theological statement written as historical accounts- like a midrash). so it is not that i dont see the Nazarean Codicil as inspried, but i dont think that the Nazarean Codicil can only communicate truths through historical accounts. i hope i dont get banned from this- i do like your forum.I have just been struggling on how to bring thlis topic up to you in a semi-passive manner. shalom- john PS: this is not true. look at the last page of the paper that i gave the url to- it gives references to places in scripture when the Tanakh refers to a woman's child as her "seed" |
|
to its completion. And as we accept Yeshua, we are adopted in- receiving all rights and priviliges any natural born child would have, therefore allowing US to defeat HaSatan also. It makes perfect sense to me.
