|
|
Christians have always argued for Yeshua’s virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. This overlooks that if virgin born, Yeshua’s '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 this descent - Luke l:6, l:36). That means she was a Levite and not from Judah, thus being discredited from Davidic lineage and not capable of being a source to the Davidic throne. But Rome did not know that, and when they created the Infancy Narratives after 200 A.D. and added it to the existing documents which would later become the New Testament, the ground work was settled for saving their concepts of Gods cohabiting with women and having super-babies along with allowing for the Jeconiah’s curse and still maintain links to the Jewish David. Little did they know the Old Testament, for it they did, they would have known God relented from the Jeconiah’s curse because of his repentance in captivity, and no longer is Joseph prohibited from being Yeshua’s human father and maintaining the throne of David. But that is a story for another day. On with this article.
Answer for yourself: Do you see that if Yeshua did not come from Joseph and the Davidic line, then he is disqualified from being the Messiah as the Messiah was to come from Judah, the tribe of David and not Levi, the tribe of Aaron?
As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Yeshua, if virgin born, could not therefore be of Davidic descent and could not be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the N.T statements that Yeshua was a descendent of David - Matt 1:1, 12:23, 15:22, Mark 10:47, Rom 1:3, Rev 5:5.
Yeshua didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom 1:3 makes it quite clear that Yeshua was of David's 'seed' (semen). So there is a problem!
Yeshua 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
Yeshua 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 N.T teaches.
The virgin-birth story is only found in 2 of the 27 N.T writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the infancy was written quite separately (added to the existing gospels around 200 A.D.), and added to the main story that begins in 3:1 (Note how 3:1 opens as a commencement here). Even the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. Check it out for yourself.
In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, for example:
The only reason that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew seems to have the story is because he misunderstood Isa 7:14. He read it as messianic (which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn't).
Answer for yourself: Don't you find it rather amusing that God would choose one to write a book of scripture and in doing so chose one who would misinterpret his own Hebraic Old Testament passages which all other Jews understood quite well to mean entirely different that his interpretation? Answer this!
This is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over (7:14-17). There is nothing messianic about it at all. In this, the child was to be called Emmanuel meaning 'God with us', but the name 'Yeshua’s (in fact the Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation', so Yeshua was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and therefore did not fulfill this 'prophesy'; however Matt's author misunderstood this and therefore couldn't have been the apostle of that name as he was not a Palestinian Jew (nor an eyewitness as he had to use Mark to write his Gospel).
Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went and then impregnated his wife and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria.
Therefore it appears Isa 7:14 relates to Isaiah's own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations. In fact there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman would conceive. He does not say that a girl who would give birth would still be a virgin at/after the conception.
The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' - the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the 2nd century BCE for the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. However, it is not a good translation in some parts, eg. in the case of Daniel, the Jews would not use it. They understood what we do not today. Namely, that the Jewish Scribes only translated the first 5 books of the LXX Septuagint and the non-Jews the rest. That means that the Greek translated Isaiah and the prophets and are responsible for the changing of the word “young woman” in the Hebrew to “virgin” in the Greek. This is a blatant mistranslation.
The Hebrew word in Isa 7:14 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) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors. The author of Matthew makes other errors, eg. in 27:9-10 he says he is quoting Jeremiah, but in fact he's quoting Zechariah 11:12-13.
Answer for yourself: Would the Holy Spirit make such a mistake if He was guiding the writing of such a document?
Answer for yourself: Would the Holy Spirit use such a man to write an “inspired” document who does not even know his own Bible…the Old Testament and the Prophets?
There are other examples of this throughout the New Testament to the discriminating reader who is well versed in the Bible, but a casual reader will overlook such discrepancies.
It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were not Palestinian Jews and 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 century Palestine. But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd.
Yeshua was supposedly a true Jew - a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), 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, 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 7:1-23 Yeshua does this, but although it seems the LXX would support the point Yeshua is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original would not.
The fact is, therefore, Yeshua could not have spoken what the Gospels reports, and such sayings are put into his mouth by the Gospel writers who being ignorant of Hebrew made their handiwork obvious.
The same applies with James (supposedly Yeshua’s brother) in Acts 15 - he uses the LXX to support his argument, although again, 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!
Answer for yourself: So what are we to do when studying the English Bible?
Answer for yourself: Can the teachings and nuances of first century Israel be fully understood from the perspective of twentieth century?
As far as settlement of peoples other than the American Indian, our nation is only about 220 years old. Our nation was established in 1776, a little over 200 years ago. The Americas were settled a little over 500 years ago. This gives us, at best, a historical perspective of five centuries. In the "New Testament:" we are looking at a culture half-way around the world some 2,000 years ago. This same culture started some 4,000 years before that. Continuous in the same place for about 6,000 years is a people from which our faith springs.
I will quote some statements that will clarify my position. I trust these will help you to understand why I have the interest that I have and spark some interest in you as well.
"The Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people...he has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him...the Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound, and splendor, then faded to dream- stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed and made a vast noise, and they're gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was...all things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"- by Mark Twain
"To explore and understand the Jewish roots of our faith is to expand and to enrich our Christian experience. This premise is at the heart of the educational endeavors of Bet Emet Ministries, and other Messianic Ministries like it, that are restoring to the Church an appreciation of its full Hebrew heritage."
It is my hope to assist believers in developing a deeper, more intimate relationship with God through the study of Hebrew language and culture.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 42A) states that Jewish boys were taught Deuteronomy 6:4 (Shema) as soon as they could speak. The Talmud specifies that "The father must teach him." Early sources suggest that this must have been the first portion from the Hebrew Bible that Yeshua committed to memory. We may assume that Joseph was responsible for fulfilling this task. This portion of scripture is known simply as "The Shema." In HEBREW it is..."Shema Yisra'el Adoni Eloheynu Adoni Ehad"...ENGLISH..."Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One." The Shema was to be recited first thing in the morning and last thing at night. Countless martyrs through the ages have died with The Shema as the last utterance from their lips, leaving this world with the proclamation of God the last words spoken. This is an affirmation of monotheism in opposition to a polytheistic environment. The Hebrews were/are to know there is only one God, not many.
From the beginning there were only two classes of people; Jews and Gentiles, those who believed in the one true God and everyone else...who, then, are we? We believe in the one true God. This is a Hebrew concept. We are therefore no longer Gentiles, regardless of our ethnic or geographical background. We, in fact, are spiritually Jewish. We have not replaced the Jews as some would have us believe, the Jews have not passed away or become irrelevant with the advent of Yeshua. Judaism is just as valid today as it was 2,000 years ago. The vast majority of traditional or formal Jews simply do not accept Yeshua as Messiah, they are still looking for Messiah to come and establish an earthly kingdom. We are now grafted into the root of the Olive Tree, Israel, according to the eleventh chapter of Romans.
Paul teaches us that God did not reject His people, Romans 11:1-6. The elect obtained what Israel so earnestly sought, the rest rejected it, and because of this, salvation came to the Gentiles according to verses 7-12. Paul seeks to arouse the Jews to envy and save them. Verse 16 says that "If the root is holy, so are the branches." Paul declares that the root is holy! Furthermore, he declares that the grafted in branches are holy! We are not to despise the Jews, we are to embrace them. They are our spiritual kinsmen and, as such, we have much to learn from them. We also have much to share, but it must be done in love and not from arrogance. We see that branches have been broken off and wild olive shoots are grafted in - we, Gentiles, have accepted God through the ministry of Yeshua and thereby are grafted into Judaism - we do not support the root but the root supports us! We are warned not to be arrogant for if the natural branches were not spared, neither will the grafted in branches be spared. We are part of the same tree by grace, God is also able to engraft the natural branches again if they believe (verses 17-24.) Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles have been saved (grafted in) and then all Israel will be saved. We are all candidates for mercy (verses 25-32.)
This is why I feel it is important to study our Jewish background. We are "grafted in Jews," [we as Christians are Israel and not Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc.]. We need to know who we are, where we come from and how we are to relate to our roots. Without this understanding, we can hardly expect to grasp the depth of the scripture. I would like to quote David Bivin and Roy Blizzard from their book Understanding the Difficult Words of Yeshua. "The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the religion is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, and the concepts are Hebrew."
Answer for yourself: If this is true, shouldn't we try to know just who the Hebrews were and are today?
Oh, by the way, is it not interesting that when Yeshua was asked the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-31, He answers by quoting The Shema? In other words, because God is One, then we are to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and those created in His image. So, basically, monotheism is the basic teaching of the Greatest Commandment, and loving God and His creations are how we carry it out. Shalom.