Jesus and the virgin birth text

[kattey]

To Turan

In Jewish writings the Greeks forced 72 Jewish scholars and their families to move to Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd century BCE to translate the Torah into Greek.  The writings say the scholars produced 72 identical translations.

What I don't know is whether the Greeks changed the translation after this.

[turanclancath]

About St.Mary .
Beautifull and i hope she gives us Harmony !!!!

[Brianroy]

An amplified Hebrew OT and Greek NT translation, with word pictures,  by Brianroy.

Micah 5:2 
“And you, Bethlehem Ephratah,
(though you) have grown into being least and insignificant
while being among the Commanders of the Thousands of Judah;     
{read “alupe”, construct plural; not alepe}
(yet) out of you to Me,  He shall come forth to become
Compared like unto Me in a Proverb,     
                 { Numbers 21:17-18b*}
ruling with dominion in Israel;
And his forth coming origin as one going out
Is  from the days of eternity, since before the world (came into being).”


Matthew 2:6
“And you, Bethlehem, Land of Judah,
Not by any means least in rank, dignity, or importance are you
Among the leaders of Judah who rule as Commanders
Who exercise authority by means of both military and civil law;

Out of you for will come out and go forth from His place
A leader who will rule as a Commander
And who will exercise authority by means of both military and civil law;

Who will Shepherd the people of Me, Israel.”     
{and be their King,   2 Sam. 5:2}


----------------------------------------------------
*Numbers 21:17-18b 
17 Then Israel sang this song, Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it:
18 The  Cistern Well which the princes dug,
Which dug the nobles of the people,
by  the (direction of  the )  Commander of the statutes – laws –customs –decrees, with their staves.”                 

  {Like unto Moses…Numbers 20:11 tells us Moses smote twice, he was supposed to smite  with the rod on only one occasion, and then speak softly or sing unto the type of his coming Yeshua at the second...which was to be his and Israel's flowing mountain spring out of the Rock. "Spring up, as if from on high" -- cf. Jer. 2:13} 

"Behold!  G-D is my JESUS!
I will trust and not be afraid, for my strength and my song is YH YHVeH,
and He became to me, JESUS.
And you shall draw water with joy
out of the flowing mountain spring of JESUS."  - Isaiah 12:2-3

The issue of understanding  a theological verse must be interpreted theologically.  One cannot talk about the soul, reach into his chest with the hand, and pull the soul out for visual presentation.  Yet it is this kind of incredulous demand that those who do not believe in the miraculous demand...being ignorant, then, that the very action of "breathing" is in itself a scientific miracle. But I digress.

In Micah 5:2, we read that the "comings forth" as umootsata(y)v" is as the source going forth, as though referring to a well spring which origin is unseen, and practically unknowable except in generality.

That origin is M'Qedem memey olam...from before the days of eternity, from before the days of the world.   

In Isaiah 7:14, we have "The Virgin" or Ha Almah that is given "to you" in the PLURAL.

  That is, if "to You" was in the SINGULAR, we might concede that it could mean Ahaz...but since Ahaz was not beside himself as a set of twins or triplets to rule the throne as one man, the pluralized "to you" which immediately precedes HaAlmah, is addressing all of the House of Judah  in the the prophecy. 

G-D will spring forth like a stream from the midst of the virgin, and be born among men by the power of the Holy Spirit by a source and means hidden from the understanding of man, except in generalities.

For this reason, Almah, which speaks of a "hiddenness", was chosen. Lest perhaps, someone would say of Deuteronomy 22:19 that in Moses' Torah, it speaks of a Bethulah as one (a woman) having already had intercourse, and that this would have been the hidden meaning of Isaiah 7:14 if Bethulah would have been handed down to us in the prophecy, instead of Almah. Hence, a Bethulah might be argued against as not being a virgin, as the Akkadian cognate informs us is true in older females past childhood ages.

In the sacrifice of Isaac,  most have missed an intent of a Temporary Resurrection story which ties in with all this theology surrounding the chosen Christ who would be identified, in par, through the virgin birth prophecy. 

So if, as the Hebrew appears to read, that  G-D raised Isaac from the dead, after that his heart was pierced by the knife of Abraham and stopped its beating upon the wood...as Paul also seems to  indicate through Luke in Hebrews 11:17-19...from where did the well-spring of resurrection life come forth, but from within,  because of a  trusting faith into G-D upon His promises when G-D himself called for it?  Isaac, therefore, was a type of the Christ who was to come...innocent, sacrificed, and who rose from the dead after paying the obligations of another.

So then, it appears that perhaps Abraham slew Isaac as an Olah offering, as Hebrews 11:17-19 seems to indicate.

 Olah was to be kalil, a whole burnt  offering of "a rising flame of ascension" -- as we have the type in the lighting of the Temple Menorah Candle and the later burnt sacrifice in the parents of Samson when they met "G-D" -- in which all was to be burnt up to G-D.   So, in context, perhaps the staying of Abraham's hand was perhaps to not put flame to Isaac and burn him to ashes; rather than to not slay Isaac his "ONLY Son", which slaying seems to enter into a past tense. 

So how odd, biblically, was Isaac raising  from the dead?   Elijah temporarily raised the widow woman's son from the dead, and Jesus raised Lazarus, and others from the dead.   Those raised by Jesus (according to Patristic sources) lived into their 90s or more.

It all appears to go theologically back to the well-spring that is brought forth and rises, to that one called Yeshua / Jesus {Salvation / Redemption} as the Torah proverb and Isaiah 12 and the prophets teach us. 

Jesus said:      He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his innermost being {from the heart}  shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:38

Isaac experienced that Living Water that flowed from G-D, out of his heart, and it healed and resurrected him from a source known only to G-D.  And if that hidden well-spring of G-D can resurrect people, it can also create a virgin birth in the womb and fulfill prophecy. 

In my studies  in Genesis 1,  I can theologically show from the Bible  that the very water we have and know on Earth today, is meant to be taught us that it is a remnant issue of that which was once from G-D when He brought low his Throne of Glory over the Earth.  Water, as the origin of life (as it were) is meant to be a sign of G-D's participation and existence in our lives.
 We also know, through the Bible, that it is in the flowing waters of the blood of our bodies that the soul of the flesh is said to reside (Lev. 17:11) .

  Isaac was a type of the coming Crucified Christ, who would die for "Original Sin", which the Olah was for.  He would also rise again from the dead and his resurrected body, like a "flame" or "spirit",  would ascend as both the Angel of G-D and as the Father's Minister to Humanity appearing before Him (Cf. Psalm 104:4, Psalm 47:5; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9).   And resurrection life or Chayyim, begins with trusting faith into G-D's Salvation...G-D's Yeshua...G-D the Father's only Son, Jesus. 

In John 8:56, Jesus told the first priests and other  leaders of Israel:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

We have come to learn that this was the day that Isaac bore the wood of his own sacrifice, and died upon the wood at the place of sacrifice as the Olah offering...but G-D raised him back to life, and gave Abraham a ram hanging from his horns in a thicket, like a crucified one, which would allow Isaac to be brought back forth from the dead, and take Isaac's place as an offering to G-D (for original sin).   Isaac became Christ in type, up to a certain point...and then G-D restored Isaac back to Abraham, even as Jesus was restored back to the Father.

Three people in the Bible are known to have experienced the Living Water from within. Moses, Elijah, and Jesus were each  for 40 days and nights without food or water,and experienced a secret well-spring of waters from the core of their being sustaining them.   In John chapter4, we read:

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

The well within was in type of the Resurrection Life that is to come, because Jesus tells us that such a well within is meant for "everlasting life"  perpetuation.   The water is a physical manifestation of the spiritual outpourings of G-D's Spirit, so that it will require an eternal resurrection body to contain regular well-spring outpourings both physically and spiritually from within...or this mortal body, like an old wineskin taking in new wine that ferments and expands...bursts.   

If G-D, by springing up living waters within a prophet can sustain such ones; how hard is it to say, theologically, G-D could spring up waters within the womb of a virgin girl, and create a special baby without seed? The waters already magically create beings after their own kind, be they people, animals, or what have you.
Even so, the Bible gives us more than adequate support in verses, and theology, and logical extension, and examples, to believe in the Isaiah 7:14 virgin birth...and an understanding as to why it was a neccessary step along the way in G-D's Plan of Salvation  -- faith and trust into Yeshua /Jesus the Christ -- who alone atones is who alone is the Way, Truth, and Life for all mankind.   Peace.   

[Moses]

Based on the fact when Mary conceived  Jesus she came to visit Zachariahs wife who was 6 moths pregnant with John. From Zachariahs time in the Temple and his journey back we can calculate that Jesus was conceived in December and 9 moths later was born in September.

When he was born it was the constellation of VIRGO.
This is also why he was called born to a Virgin.

Alma is a hebrew word for maiden.

[eccles]

Redating Revelation and other NT works, while destroying the Quelle Myth

Mike, the Gospel of Mark is simply the preachings of Peter in Rome, as recollected and edited by Mark...it is the THIRD Gospel.  This is the literary historical testimony.  Textual Criticism will one day be guided by such supporting data more rigorously. 

Wrong.
Mark was the first Gospel written. Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark.
Remember those names were attributed much later 4th Century if I remember. No one knows who the authors of the Gospels were.

[eccles]

ALMA does not mean Virgin. It means young woman .
Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”

Proof from a Rabbi:

Does the Hebrew Word Alma  Really Mean “Virgin”?
 
 

Question:

Dear Rabbi Singer,

I have listened to your tapes and I have also read a number of your articles on your web site regarding Christ’s virgin birth and you make some very good points.  I have discussed this issue with my pastor and although he did remark that he finds your arguments “interesting” he brought up a good argument (I think).  He asked that if the Hebrew word alma only meant “young woman” and not “virgin,” why is it that in every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin?  I think he has made a good point and will relate your answer to him.  I thank you in advance.


Answer:

Your pastor’s contention that “every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin” is incorrect.  This is not the first time I have come across a Christian who has made this erroneous assertion; and each and every time I hear it I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim.  This is especially the case in our modern age where computer technology has made simple word studies so quick and easy to research.  I will briefly explain your question for the readers of our website who are unfamiliar with this subject.

For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.”  The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”  The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus.  The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

How accurate is this Christian claim?  The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures.  If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous.  The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times.  If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma].  This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.  What do these three things all have in common?  They leave no trace.  After the eagle has flown across the sky, determining that the eagle had ever flown there is impossible.  Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail).  After a ship has moved across the sea, the water comes together behind it and there is no way to tell that a ship had ever passed through there.  Similarly, King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them.  Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.”  The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin.  On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children.  Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma.  Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer
            ----------------------------------------------


Roman Catholic version:
The Council of Ephesus in 431 formally sanctioned devotion to the Virgin as Theotokos, Mother of God, (more accurately translated as God bearer) allowing the creation of icons bearing the images of the Virgin and Child. Devotion to Mary was, however, already widespread by this point. The early Church Fathers saw Mary as the "new Eve" who said "yes" to God as Eve had said no. The non-canonical Gospel of James, written around 150, is an example of early recognition of Mary, advocating her perpetual virginity. Mary, as the first Church canonized Saint, whereas St. Dismas the penitential thief was canonized by Jesus on the cross, and Mother of Jesus, was deemed to be a compassionate mediator between suffering mankind and her son, Jesus, who was seen as King and Judge. Biblical support for this position was found in the story of the Marriage at Cana whereat Mary entreated Jesus to turn water into wine (Gospel of John, Chapter 2). Elizabeth's praise of Mary "blessed art thou among women" and "who am I that the mother of my Lord would visit me?" in Luke 2 are also cited, among other passages of Scripture.


 
Mary was not a virgin. She had 6  Children in addition to  Jeshua bar Joseph (Jesus)

[Brianroy]

Redating Revelation and other NT works, while destroying the Quelle Myth

Mike, the Gospel of Mark is simply the preachings of Peter in Rome, as recollected and edited by Mark...it is the THIRD Gospel.  This is the literary historical testimony.  Textual Criticism will one day be guided by such supporting data more rigorously. 

Says Eccles: Wrong.
Mark was the first Gospel written. Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark.
Remember those names were attributed much later 4th Century if I remember. No one knows who the authors of the Gospels were.

 
My response: Eccles, You haven't done your homework or research on the issue. You have no historical dative analysis or other preponderant proofs authority to back up your erroneous assertion. 

[Brianroy]

Eccles writes: Proof from a Rabbi:
Does the Hebrew Word Alma  Really Mean “Virgin”?

Question: 
Dear Rabbi Singer ...,etc.

Eccles, please try researching the Virgin Birth issue regarding the language use between the Alma v. Bethulah, beginning with the Akkadian Cognate for the Hebrew Bethulah, as I have already provided, or at least reading and comprehending the argument. 

You will also want to do your research to discover that Jesus / Yeshua, was the FIRSTBORN from the womb, and  do extensive Biblical textual research of water's relationship to G-D and "life", and at least acknowledge that G-D ALMIGHTY is not unable to create miracles large or small.

  Singer is a radical anti-Christian with a particular anti-Yeshua agenda, filled with envy and jealousy of the Christian believers' relationship with the G-D of Israel.

There is also the term Theopneustos that you may want to research as well.   It is translated variously as "G-D inspired" and "G-D breathed".

 Now look at the Hebrew of Genesis 2:7, and explain the theology of the birth of the second life/soul and explain from the Hebrew using the Biblical Scriptures of the Tanakh as to what  happened, and see if you can or can't tie it all together correctly.  I'll even help you get started, Judaistically (since you quote Tovia Singer).  You will need  to utilize Leviticus 14 and other passages, if you can figure it out...though I doubt it.  So start teaching, and show us how that you have all the correct answers.     

 

[eccles]

Brianroy,
With all due respects I am not interested in doing theological research into fictional stories. I f you have not noticed I am Atheist, a bedraggled refugee from the Roman Catholic Church. I had all their theology and fictional BS drummed into me for 12 years at Jesuit College. I have researched the foundation of Judeo/Christianity and concluded that it is all copied from other religious fables of the time. There is no G-D. There was no "Creation". A person called Jesus probably did exist but was NOT the "son of god'. Fables were written about him just like fables about Davy Crocket.

The bible is yet another book of fiction and not a good one at all. I just finished reading Genesis to II Kings and got so sick of all the BS I gave up.

I am interested in FACT. Nothing in the bible is fact, none can be verified. There are no extant original authored manuscripts with which to verify it.

Roman Catholicism was started by Emperor Constantine I at the Council of Nicea 325CE  and made the official religion of the Roman Empire for political reasons. The Roman Catholic Church spent the next 1500 years slaughtering all those who were non-believers, heretics or were opposed to it.

[notalent]

Nothing in the bible is fact, none can be verified.

Your statement is untrue.  Nebuchadnezzar is fiction?  Tiglath Pilesar?  Sennachrib?  Xerxes?  None of these persons has been verified?

You are not reliable on this topic, I think.

[Elijah]

I stand with nontalent on this one.
Mose do we have your vote too.
GRIN
And I would like to add that you can google virgin birth and to produce a male all it requires is a Y chromosome because what comes up are female sharks of a species who give birth to identical clone births of females of themselves when no male is around to impreganate them. Thus give the full set
of chromosome DNA that these eggs have (not having divided to be only half the data info) and the only difference between these female offspring and Jesus would be a Y chromosome. Therefore we dont need some miraculous fetus, or sperm for the conception but something that already exists (virgin birth in heterosexual sharks) and if gamma ray mutation can cause evolution then why cant it change an X to a Y to create our Lord the son of God.

SCIENCE AT ITS BEST
in the minds of those who truly arte moved by the spirit
of God Jehovah
ELIJAH

By the way, this topic is discussion of writing and texts, not sure if that's archeology, but i didnt start this thread, so i plead innocent here. (Eccles wrote the administrator and then posted publicly a dare for me to do so in return. I should be able to defend myself rather than walk on eggs.)

[Elijah]

By the way Xerxes is a good topic. The Bible says Ahasuerus not Xerxes. And previous scholars of the past 2200 years thought Xerxes was Artaxerxes. Others accepted our Xerxes preceding Artaxerxes but thought Esther's Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes meaning the 7th year she married is also the 7th year Ezra started his records. Another issue is that Cambyses and Smurdis and Gamata preceding Darius is referred to by Ezra as the days of Ahasuerus who stopped the temple from being built. So Esther's Ahasuerus is not the only one. The Persian kings is the most confused span of all biblical history compressed or stretched, compared to Egyptian where Egypt has a whole successive list while the Bible in most cases just says Pharaoh.