Mat 1:18 But the birth of יהושע Messiah was as follows: After His mother Miryam was engaged to Yosĕph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant from the Set-apart Spirit.
Mat 1:19 And Yosĕph her husband, being righteous, and not wishing to make a show of her, had in mind to put her away secretly.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought about this, see, a messenger of יהוה appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Yosĕph, son of Dawiḏ, do not be afraid to take Miryam as your wife, for that which is in her was brought forth from the Set-apart Spirit.
Mat 1:21 “And she shall give birth to a Son, and you shall call His Name יהושע for He shall save1 His people from their sins.” Footnote: 1This is the precise meaning of the Heḇrew of His Name.
Mat 1:22 And all this came to be in order to fill what was spoken by יהוה through the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 “See, a maiden shall conceive, and she shall give birth to a Son, and they shall call His Name Immanu’ĕl,” which translated, means, “Ěl with us.”
Mat 1:24 And Yosĕph, awaking from his sleep, did as the messenger of יהוה commanded him and took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she gave birth to her Son, the first-born. And he called His Name יהושע.

It seems to vary a lot. I didn't read where anyone nails it down definitely. So I suppose, "according to matthew" is pretty accurate..)

Thank you for that wonderful link, JamesH. I take it the Roman numerals in the date column refer to a particular century? That is, the "iii" in the date column for P1 refers to the third century C.E., would that be correct?

Here's one some might find useful. I'm just beginning to go back over every thing and see what I have missed. I know it's a lot, but, that's part of it right? I'm reading the cr and cgb is(might) going to invest in the 'Logos' and give it a shot. I agree. Yada does a good job sparking that wanting to know it.
You never stop learning, even though you come to know what He's trying to say to us and that's the point I believe.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/cou.../ntintro/IndexNTIntr.htm

I was wondering, Who filled in all the missing verses in the New Testament that are missing in the Manuscripts?

Is anyone seeing the elephant in the room.

•Isaiah 7:14 taken IN context.
•The new testament being unreliable.

The only answer is.

•No Virgin Birth.
•No Jesus Christ.
•No Sacrifice.
•No new testament.

The only thing you can Trust and Rely on is YHWH and his Covenant.

Eh Steve Hi,

What Word of YHWH are you basing your statements on.

(YHWH dabar dabar)

Eh Steve,
I was hoping you would attempt to discuss your statements and my statements using “YHWH’s dabar “Scripture and Verse” so I will try to restate more clearly “The elephant in the room “

1. Isaiah 7:14 in context and original language. ( Isaiah chapter 7, 8:1-10)
2. The new testament being the word of man and unreliable.

Here is the proof why you cannot use any of the New Testament. http://www.usefulcharts....stament-manuscripts.html

I will use Matthew as the example since I am referring to the virgin birth. First of all these Manuscripts are all copies none of them
are written by Matthew, Mark, Luke,ect. the so called authors.

Take each Manuscript on the chart of Matthew dated 150-200ce these are the written dates not the found dates and circle or mark them in your new testament (i.e. p104, p64 & p67 ect.)

Then look to the 4th century Codex’s and your New Testement and ask yourself “Who wrote all the rest of the verses that were not marked or circled including the virgin birth? And then ask yourself who even wrote the manuscript fragments?

Eh Steve How about one bullet to start with.
• No Virgin Birth.

Steve,
No disrespect taken. The virgin birth has always been an issue with me even during my 10 Missionary Baptist years to present.

Two months ago I would have agreed with you on. “He literally walked right out of the pages of the Towrah.” & “The timing and the fulfillment of prophecy is a "royal flush"

But I started studying the Torah Prophecies of the NT and found a serious problem, the first one I started with. “The Virgin Birth” “Hence the elephant in the room that no one will discuss”

Steve the debate is not between me and you but between Mans Word the NT and YHWH’s Word Isaiah 7:14

The answer I found here is new to me and I was hoping to discuss the elephant in the room with everyone.

TKS Jim

This discussion is/or has taken place...Tha 2 words in the discussion I think will not be resolved until a person/yada, with a better hebrew translation can narrow it down.
Also read the comments:

http://jewsforjesus.blog...ssianic-prophecy-or.html

".....behold, the man whose name is the branch....."

In that light.....I can't see how "we" are trying to make anything fit.

Hi Shalome82,

Question” were the prophecies of the Branch Zechariah 6:12,13 fulfilled by Yahowsha in 33ce?”

Steve,

Seems like all you want to do is attack me, I think Yada has a word for that. All I did is post YAH’s word and you have not addressed the word one time. I have not said that there is no Ma’aseyah.

Based on YAH’s word in Isaiah and the lack of YAH’s word in the NT, I came to the conclusion that there is.
• No Virgin Birth
• Steve Who Wrote Matthew?

James... I'm sorry if it looks like I am "attacking" you... that was not at all what I was trying to do. I guess I just do not understand and I was reading things in between the lines and making statements based on my presumptions. Apart from whatever the full and accurate meaning of Isaiah 7:14 is, in all its' context... I would say that although a lack of reliable evidence in the "nt" makes it not possible to "prove" a virgin birth based on it.... the lack of evidence there does not by default disprove it. I hope someone "brighter" than I comes along and helps you gain wisdom and the resolve you are searching out. If at some point I look into this topic further I will be happy then to discuss Isa 7:14 and any insights I may have gained.

Shalom

Pardon the KJV.

Isa 7:14 ThereforeH3651 the LordH136 himselfH1931 shall giveH5414 you a sign;H226 Behold,H2009 a virginH5959 shall conceive,H2029 and bearH3205 a son,H1121 and shall callH7121 his nameH8034 Immanuel.H6005


Gen 24:43 Behold,H2009 IH595 standH5324 byH5921 the wellH5869 of water;H4325 and it shall come to pass,H1961 that when the virginH5959 cometh forthH3318 to drawH7579 water, and I sayH559 toH413 her, Give me, I pray thee,H4994 a littleH4592 waterH4325 of thy pitcherH4480 H3537 to drink;H8248


H5959
עלמה
‛almâh
BDB Definition:
1) virgin, young woman
1a) of marriageable age
1b) maid or newly married
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5958

H5959 is only used 7 times in the Tanak. The 7th time is in Isa 7:14. I find it interesting that 7 is a number of completion, do you think that this is just a coincidence?


H1330
בּתוּלה
bethûlâh
BDB Definition:
1) virgin
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate

H1330 is used 50 times in the Tanak.


H5291
נערה
na‛ărâh
BDB Definition:
1) girl, damsel, female servant
1a) girl, damsel, little girl
1a1) of young woman, marriageable young woman, concubine, prostitute
1b) maid, female attendant, female servant
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5288

H5291 is used 63 times in the Tanak.

I find it interesting that of these 3 choices for young maiden or virgin that H5959 was used the least indicating that is not the common word for young maiden but is more special than that.

Shalom

As far as I can tell virgin is a completely appropriate translation, and in the context seems the most accurate to me.

A simple translation would be:

Therefore Yahowah, He will give to you a sign. Behold the virgin will become pregnant and bare a son and she will call his name Imanuel (AlefMemNunWaw AlefLamed)

In terms of an 'owth (sign, wonder, miracle or mighty act) from Yahowah (According to the DSS Yahowah was written, not My Lord) a virgin conceiving and baring a child fits much more than a woman baring a child.

On page 10 of the ^above linked .doc

Let’s examine the prediction of the virgin birth. It’s in Yasha’yah 7, the 14th verse. To set the scene, Yahowah is speaking to King ‘Achaz, the father of Hezekiah, by way of His prophet Yasha’yahuw. He is trying to bolster the king’sfaith because the monarch had chosen to form a protective alliance with Assyriarather than Yahowah. The year is 734 BCE.....

I ran across this. Seems its meaning is strongly about beiong a virgin....unless a transvestite, old woman or such :^)

Deu 22:13 “When any man takes a wife, and shall go in to her, and shall hate her,
Deu 22:14 and shall make abusive charges against her and bring an evil name on her and say, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I did not find her a maiden,’
Deu 22:15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the proof of the girl’s maidenhood to the elders of the city at the gate.
Deu 22:16 “And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he hates her.
Deu 22:17 ‘And see, he has made abusive charges against her, saying, “I did not find your daughter a maiden,” and yet these are the proofs of my daughter’s maidenhood.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
Deu 22:18 “And the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him,
Deu 22:19 and fine him one hundred pieces of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name on a maiden of Yisra’ĕl. And she is to be his wife, he is not allowed to put her away all his days.
Deu 22:20 “But if the matter is true, that the girl was not found a maiden,
Deu 22:21 then they shall bring out the girl to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done wickedness in Yisra’ĕl, to whore in her father’s house. Thus you shall purge the evil from your midst.

It has been pointed out many times in the posts above " their have been many virgin births"

The only place that has a "holy spirit" involved was writen by our Christian friends in the Third to Fourth century CE 

Walk away from Babylon (gate way of the gods) !

  
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

The SIGN that was given to King Ahaz is "verse 16" of Isaiah chap.7 

 14 Therefore YHWH himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 YHWH will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

Not the virgin birth of a Babylon god  700 yrs later. 
HA BAAL

JamesH,

Is there a specific point you are trying to make? Are you questioning whether Yahowsha came at all? Are you questioning if Yahowsha found in the xthian "NT" is the same one spoken of in the torah? A think a more forward "I feel he didn't come and here are the scriptures I am using to back that up" or a "hey guys, I am struggling with this because this translations seem to be lacking". The way this thread is going now it almost seems a bit leading, like you are trying to move people to speak a certain point.

I can say that for a few weeks I struggled with Yahowsha'. I desperately wanted something other than a completely flawed xthian "NT" to hold on to. I was angry that we can have texts of events that happened thousands of years before Yahowsha' , all the way to Adam and the creation of earth, and yet I couldn't get a simple confirmation of events that were the most significant thing to happen since Yahowah came into covenant relationship with Abraham! I still constantly struggle with what did He say and what did He not say. I get angry and honestly avoid much of the "NT" altogether most of the time. In fact, I use it mostly to discredit Paul with his crazy babbling.

What I had to come to terms with was not the reliable nature of the xthian "NT", but the reliable nature of the prophecies being fulfilled the way Yahowah said they would be. Yahowah said there would be an unblemished Lamb that would provide the door for me to have access to a familial relationship with Him. I can trust that He provided that Lamb. I don't trust from "faith", but from seeing that the other prophecies of Yahowah were reliable, I don't think He would fail in the middle of the game. The world is also looking quite close to where Jeremiah's and John's (Revelation) visions said it would look and what would happen before the return of Yahowsha'. So, again it's looking pretty good for Yahowah's ability to predict future history.

What I had to do was simply look at Yahowsha' as a useful implement. I don't have to understand all the nuance of His existence. The same is true for the Sept Apart Spirit, I don't understand all the nuance of Her existence either. However, I trust the reliability of Yahowah and accept the relationship He determined the Set Apart Spirit would play in my life - that of Spiritual Mother, covering, the One who allows me to appear perfect before Yahowah. In fact, its funny that we all concentrate so much of Yahowsha' when our "relationship" status is so much more dependent on the Set Apart Spirit. Yahowsha' is the door and He thankfully fulfilled what was needed to be done for Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruit. It matters not if He is actually consistent with the portrait painted in the xthian NT . That doorway is open to anyone and everyone that chooses to partake - but it's a door. Why argue, fret, fight, and in the way of xthians - worship a doorway? It's funny, Yahowah in His 10 Words (or commandments or however we are supposed to talk about those 10 things we all learned wrong all our religious lives) He even spoke of honoring our Father and our Mother. He told us the relationships we needed to attend to, nourish, and get right - the relationship with Him as Father and with the Set Apart Spirit as our covering, our Spiritual Mother.

Maybe that is why there is so little we can glean from the xthian NT on Yahowsha' - understanding Him isn't enough to have a relationship with Yahowah. I have seen the result of a focus on "Jesus" as a xthian - people begin to worship, praise, honor, pray to, focus on, rely on, and love to the point of hating Yahowah the Implement. The other times Yahowsha' came to earth, those times in the torah (I believe there were 5 times) it wasn't a big deal. People didn't get so caught up that they turned from Yahowah. It seems they better understood the connection - that when Yahowah needed to do something in this earth, have a face-to-face conversation and feast with man - who you had an encounter with was going to be Yahowsha'. That was all of Yahowah man could handle without the consequence of immediate destruction. For Passover, something needed to be done on this earth to accomplish it. Yahowah, being consistent, was going to spend Yahowsha' again. He told us the route Yahowsha would take (seed of a woman, kind and priest, etc., etc., etc.).

Again, I get the uncertainty and anger with the xthian NT. I get the frustration with not being to verify certain aspects and translation errors and all of that. I absolutely get it. But, if there is a certain point you want to push out - just push it out and let people respond to that instead of the nudging, pushing, and innuendo. It feels a bit awkward and doesn't flow with the way we normally discuss topics head on.

OK thanks for being more direct. I only have time to be breif for now. I understand the disappointment of finding out you've been lied to, and wanting to verify everything and not just accepting on "faith".

We can even go back to square one:
OK I know God exists because this couldn't be a cosmic accident, but who is he and how did he authenticate himself.

It's thru prophecy (knowing end from begining).

Although most of ItG, YY focus mainly on Messianic prophecy, there is also much wrote by these same prophets giving much detail about the fate of cities, nations and etc. Much were fulfilled AFTER positive time stamps, like multiple witnesses about the year the Tanak was translated into greek, and with a check of history authenticate them. Then these same prophets also wrote about a masse'yah both suffering and as king (yet future)....which also helps to trust eyewitness accounts.

Mattithyah was not haBAAL, he was one of the 12 chosen by Masse'yah. One would think this thread would have died after the "maiden" and "behold a sign" discussions. Enough beating this dead horse. I'm done.

Yes, If the concept of the virgin birth is not true along with Paul, I would say that all the new testament is not true.

Yes, it would change what the first five Feasts and Festivals represent, I don't know what that would be other than the literal meaning when they were first took place.

I do know that The Day Of Atonement and Tabernacle, are coming fast.

The Great Day of YHWH!!!!!!!!

If you were standing in Jerusalem in the year 33ce and you knew as much about the Torah as you have come to know now. "do you think the verse in Genesis is talking about a virgin birth?  


Now if you were sitting in England  in the year 1611 CE with your new King James looking at the mother and child then maybe the verse in Genesis would make me think of a virgin birth.

Sorry if I'm not good at this writing thing, I'm kind of a fact guy and type with one finger:)

I am not sure about 33 CE. I will say that one reason it stands out to "me" today and probably would stand out to me back then is because rarely was anything ever mentioned as coming through a woman. Covenants, seeds, family, promises, and even property were always confined to men. The best most women could hope for is to marry well. So, as a woman, I might think "isn't that strange, Yahowah didn't mention Adam at all". I mean, Adam was standing right there (I think), why not say "from Adam's seed" or "from the offspring of Adam". Are offspring ever mentioned as coming from a woman any other time? I know women's whose "households" were spared from destruction (like Rahab), but never a promise.

Then let's think abaout Chawah's name - it means "life giver". Adam's name simply means "man". So, Yahowah was in essence telling the serpent his destruction would come from the "life giver" and not from "man".

Of course, I could be grasping at straws. But, having been in the throws of academic feminism for much of my adult life, I kinda always look for a glimmer of "I am woman and that is good" in scripture. Mainly because religion has been so absolutely brutal to women. So, again, I could be grasping.

I also want to point out that "virgin birth" is something that isn't outside the realm of the possible for today. In fact, it would be quite easy to have a "virgin birth" - you just need a sperm donor and do artificial insemination. So, I guess in my 2012 brain it isn't hard to fathom virgin birth.

Edited by user Friday, October 5, 2012 2:36:05 PM(UTC)  | Reason: modern virgin birth