Virgin Birth or Son of Joseph?

[Vic]

Within Hebrew Roots and with some Messianics, is the belief that Jesus was not born of the "Virgin" Mary, and is in fact, the son of Joseph, not the Son of God. Some would also say that Jesus is in fact the son of God, not divine and more like an agent of God.

What do the Scriptures say? and what does it mean if Jesus was not only not born of the virgin Mary--but also not the Son of God? And what are the benefits within Hebrew Roots of promoting this teaching?

[sheep wrecked]

This is an interesting topic. I thought I would quote the OT prophecy and the NT fulfillment:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to 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 to her, and said, Hail, you that are highly favored, the Lord is with you: blessed are you 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 to her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God.


:anyone:

[Emjesown]

First of all
nice those big emo's above text.

About the topic:

My

When they can convince people that Jesus is not born from a virgin and not God or divine, then they can bring everyone back to torah torah
Since nothing has changed!
We could throw out the whole NT
since the gospels are not worth anything dso are the lettres.

Scary thought huh?

EMJE

[Vic]

(01-06-2009 07:59 PM)Emjesown Wrote:  First of all
nice those big emo's above text.

About the topic:

My

...Scary thought huh?

EMJE

Thank you Emje, about the swords.

So glad you like them. After a certain number of posts you'll get a new one, with a different color and different concept or saying. There's eight possible so far. So get

What you said is a scary thought, and yet many seem more than willing to follow people they don't even know and their supposed truth than believe the Word of God.

It is very sad. And yet we see many being restored to Christ and belief in the New Testament. Praise God that He is faithful even when we aren't.

[strefanash]

(01-06-2009 07:25 PM)Vic Wrote:  

What do the Scriptures say? and what does it mean if Jesus was not only not born of the virgin Mary--but also not the Son of God? And what are the benefits within Hebrew Roots of promoting this teaching?

There are I think several possibilities. Namely that the scriptures never said that he was divine because they simply do not , or never said so in their original texts because they were corrupted.

The first is absurd. Honest reading of the text suffices to answer this one It the second is true then they part company with christianity like any hare krishna or mormon who claim this of the Bible also.

But if the Bible does say what it says, and was not corrupted with a mythological accretion of fairy stories after his time then C S Lewis' famous still trilemma holds true.

If the scriptures are accurate then Jesus was, if not God, a liar or a lunatic and that makes him another in a long line of religious maniacs, for without his divinity his dream, so to speak, is totally unrealizable and He was merely yet another naive mother's boy of a dreamer.

IF we wasnt God then we was really a stupid boy who lured people into miserable lives for an impossible ideal. These lives were miserable as there was no power of the Spirit available for he could not validly offer it. So all that remained was a law commanding perfection, nothing less, and no help at all.

If not God this naive dreamer preached on the evil of men but thought that something existed that could over come it. This is not possible if he is not God

Admire Him as a moral teacher if He wasn't God? Rather curse him as a liar and a fool, or curse the church that added fables to a rather naive moral teaching (after all "love one another" in this world, without divine power, is an outright stupid idea)

HE could over come evil if he wasn't God?

To HR i say COME OFF IT!!!

:boos:

You CANNOT separate his divinity from his teaching

[sheep wrecked]

(01-08-2009 04:49 AM)strefanash Wrote:  There are I think several possibilities. Namely that the scriptures never said that he was divine because they simply do not , or never said so in their original texts because they were corrupted.

Hey Stref

Let me ask you a question - if the original texts were corrupted, then how do we know that anything we believe is really about the one true God?

Quote:The first is absurd. Honest reading of the text suffices to answer this one It the second is true then they part company with christianity like any hare krishna or mormon who claim this of the Bible also.

And again, if the text was corrupted, then we really don't know .......

Quote:If the scriptures are accurate then Jesus was, if not God, a liar or a lunatic and that makes him another in a long line of religious maniacs, for without his divinity his dream, so to speak, is totally unrealizable and He was merely yet another naive mother's boy of a dreamer.

You are correct - if the Scriptures are corrupted, then we have zilch, zero nada, and we have all been duped

Now that we're painted in a corner ..... what to do

[strefanash]

(01-08-2009 11:08 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  [quote='strefanash' pid='734' dateline='1231404571']
There are I think several possibilities. Namely that the scriptures never said that he was divine because they simply do not , or never said so in their original texts because they were corrupted.

Hey Stref

Let me ask you a question - if the original texts were corrupted, then how do we know that anything we believe is really about the one true God?

I think the onus is on them who claim that the texts are corrupted. Let them produce documentary evidence that this is so. If they appeal to the truth of their own doctrine so assert that they MUST be corrupted, they are arguing in a circle, the fallacy of petittio principii, or begging the question.

I also imagine that they would claim that the original texts were not corrupted, but that the ones we have are corrupted, (is that what you mean?) with doctrines as to the divinity of christ being the corrupted additions. Again I say let them prove this by documentary evidence. Let them produce the incorrupt original and even if they can let them prove that it is either incorrupt or an original without arguing in a logical circle

[sheep wrecked]

(01-08-2009 11:59 AM)strefanash Wrote:  I think the onus is on them who claim that the texts are corrupted. Let them produce documentary evidence that this is so. If they appeal to the truth of their own doctrine so assert that they MUST be corrupted, they are arguing in a circle, the fallacy of petittio principii, or begging the question.

I also imagine that they would claim that the original texts were not corrupted, but that the ones we have are corrupted, (is that what you mean?) with doctrines as to the divinity of christ being the corrupted additions. Again I say let them prove this by documentary evidence. Let them produce the incorrupt original and even if they can let them prove that it is either incorrupt or an original without arguing in a logical circle

They have definitely tried to obfuscate the translation issues. As we no longer have the "originals" then on what do they base an "incorrect" translation? Seems circular reasoning to me as well :excited:

We also have the issue of the preserved Word. Either God failed or lied .......

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 You shall keep them, O LORD, you shall preserve them from this generation for ever


What we have with the "virgin" issue is a disagreement with the word used in Isaiah 7:14. So, either those who want to debunk the virgin birth say that almah does not mean virgin or that the text was corrupted. There is all kinds of trashing of the Scriptures these days ........


Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin [H5959 - alma] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Then ....... to compound the error, they attack Matthew who stated through the angel that Mary was fulfilling that prophecy. This is why the NT is slashed and dashed by many, and in the Hebrew Roots movement as well, making Jesus Christ, "just a man".

Amazing how one little word can cause a dominio effect, huh?

[sari83]

This is a serious topic of discussion. As believers we know how important the truth is. For this reason, I've actually been studying on my own the clear facts surrounding the virgin birth doctrine. I do not intend to deny the divinity of Christ. Neither do I think it is a cause of denying His divine nature. It's just that I can see where there are some big questions, and many unfounded answers.

1. Why didn't any of the other NT books apart from Matthew & Luke record that Jesus was born of a virgin? On the contrary, many of Paul's writings affirm the humanity of Jesus.

1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(KJV)

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(KJV)

2. Why is the geneology of Joseph recorded in the book of Matthew? The bloodline cannot be passed to a son by an adoptive father. It's an impossibility.

Matt 1:1-16
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
(KJV)

3. Why did Jesus call himself son of man?

Son 5207 huios (hwee-os');
apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship:

of 3588 ho (ho);
including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom):

Man 444 anthropos (anth'-ro-pos);
from 435 and ops (the countenance; from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:

Mtt 8:20, Mtt 9:6, Mtt 10:26, Mtt 11:19, Mtt 12:8, Mtt 12:32, Mtt 13:37, Mtt 16:13, Mrk 2:18, Mrk 8:31, Mrk 9:9, Mrk 10:33, Lk 7:34, Lk 9:22, Joh 1:51, Joh 6:53, Acts 7:56, Rev 1:13, etc.

4. If Jesus' birth was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel?

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
(KJV)

Matt 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(KJV)

5. Did Jesus eat butter and honey?

Isa 7:15
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
(KJV)

Matt 11:19
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
(KJV)

6. Before Jesus learned to refuse evil and choose the good was the land forsaken of both her kings?

Isa 7:16
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
(KJV)

7. If there was dual-fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, wouldn't this mean a virgin has conceived before?

It is interesting to note that many scholars propose Immanuel is actually the name of Isaiah's son.

If the Hebrews of Jesus' time knew that Isaiah had prophesied the Messiah would be born of virgin conception, Jesus' miraculous birth would have been publicly known and acknowledged.

John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
(KJV)

(01-08-2009 01:37 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  

(01-08-2009 11:59 AM)strefanash Wrote:  I think the onus is on them who claim that the texts are corrupted. Let them produce documentary evidence that this is so. If they appeal to the truth of their own doctrine so assert that they MUST be corrupted, they are arguing in a circle, the fallacy of petittio principii, or begging the question.

I also imagine that they would claim that the original texts were not corrupted, but that the ones we have are corrupted, (is that what you mean?) with doctrines as to the divinity of christ being the corrupted additions. Again I say let them prove this by documentary evidence. Let them produce the incorrupt original and even if they can let them prove that it is either incorrupt or an original without arguing in a logical circle

They have definitely tried to obfuscate the translation issues. As we no longer have the "originals" then on what do they base an "incorrect" translation? Seems circular reasoning to me as well :excited:

We also have the issue of the preserved Word. Either God failed or lied .......

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 You shall keep them, O LORD, you shall preserve them from this generation for ever


What we have with the "virgin" issue is a disagreement with the word used in Isaiah 7:14. So, either those who want to debunk the virgin birth say that almah does not mean virgin or that the text was corrupted. There is all kinds of trashing of the Scriptures these days ........


Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin [H5959 - alma] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Then ....... to compound the error, they attack Matthew who stated through the angel that Mary was fulfilling that prophecy. This is why the NT is slashed and dashed by many, and in the Hebrew Roots movement as well, making Jesus Christ, "just a man".

Amazing how one little word can cause a dominio effect, huh?

[YYZ Skinhead]

I dunno if this is veering too far off the thread subject, but years ago I realized that since "natural" modern humans can induce virgin pregnancies with the aid of a petri dish and a sperm-holding syringe, it wouldn't be too hard for the Creator of humans to supernaturally induce a Divine virgin pregnancy (albeit with a natural birth, which is what I think "beget" means -- e.g. Jesus = God's only begotten Son as opposed to God's son Adam who was created, not born).

(Yeah. There are syringes that small.)