Jesus' birth name might have been Y'shua ben Yoseph.It may well have been the Greek name of Jesus, since Greek names were popular as well after the time of Alexander the Great.He was the first born in a large family and had brothers and sisters.His mother,therefore was not an "eternal virgin".Yoseph,his father was known as Jesus' father and a carpenter.Four brother's names are given and he had at least two sisters.The word brethren relates to his brother's and sisters,not his disciples.His family was never far from him during his life.
Matt 1:25(Luke 2:7),"...till she had brought forth her firstborn son;and he called his name Jesus.
John 6:42(John 1:45,Luke 4:22),"...Is this not Jesus,the son of Joseph,whose father and mother we know?"
Matt 13:55-56(Mark 6:3)Is this not the carpenter's son?is not his mother called Mary?and his brethren,James, Joses, Simon,and Juda? And his sisters,are they all not with us?...."
John 2:12,"....he,and his mother,and his brethren,and his disciples..."
Luke 8:19-20 (Matt 12:46-47,Mark 3:31-32),"Then came to him his mother and brethren,and could not come to him for the press.And it was told to him,'Thy mother and thy brethren stand without,desiring to see thee."'
This establishes his family and family background.Now let's examine the concept of the revelations that were supposedly given. Shouldn't such a message of heavenly dimension have affected his life and relationship to his family?
Luke 1:26-35 has an angel appearing to Mary and telling her of having a child though a virgin,and that the child is the awaited Messiah.In Matt 1:20-21,an angel tells Joseph the same thing.
Obviously they would have understood this amazing occurrence since in Luke 1:48-49,Mary is shown to say,"...for,behold,from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.For He that is mighty (G-d) hath done to me great things."
Shouldn't her and Joseph's relationship with Jesus been one of awe considering this amazing background?If it was revealed to them that he was the Messiah,wouldn't his whole family have followed him as his first believers?Yet,they were not. Shouldn't there have been a special relationship between Jesus and his mother of total respect and awe,her for him by his origins and he for her as the chosen vessel to bring the Messiah into this world.
Matt 12:46-50 when his mother and family came to see him,he said,Who is my mother?Who are my brethren?And then pointed at his disciples and said this is my mother and brethren. Those that do the will of G-d.
His mother came to see him and he brushed her off.For any son this is disrespectful and for Jesus to do so to the woman that supposed bore him through the direct intervention of G-d is astonishingly disrespectful.He could have made the point that all that follow the will of G-d are his family without being disrespectful and disparaging to his mother.How could he speak in such a manner to her if she was the "holy virgin mother of Christianity"?
Luke 11:27-28,"....a certain woman ...said to him,Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the paps which thou hast suckled.But he said.Yea,rather,blessed are they that hear the word of G-d and keep it."
He reiterates his belief that those that do G-d's will are blessed in the world,but evidently denies the exclamation by Mary in Luke1:48,where she says all generations will call her blessed. Where is the reverence?
John 2:4,"Jesus said unto her (Mary), Woman,what have I to do with thee?"
This shows total disrespect to Mary.She is his mother and he calls her woman as though she were a stranger and separates himself from her. In fact,there is nowhere in the NT that Jesus uses any endearing term to his mother.Not only is there a lack of reverence but there is a strange lack of the simple affection between a child and parent.
Luke 2:43-50 has to do when Joseph and Mary were looking for Jesus when he was at the Temple after they had left Jerusalem for home and had to return to find him. After they find him they express they're frustration at his staying behind and causing them worry.He replied to them,"How is it that ye sought me?Did you not know that I be at my Father's house about my Father's business?
The next line is "And they understood not the saying that he spoke"
First we see that Mary and Joseph did not understand Jesus' alleged mission.We see here that they did not understand that Jesus must do G-d's work as he is supposedly the Messiah.If the scene with Gabriel was true about appearing before Mary and telling her about Jesus' upcoming birth and being Messiah they would have fully understood Jesus' mission and special nature, but they didn't.
Mark 3:21,"And when his friends heard of it,they went out to lay hold of him;for they said,He is beside himself."
From this phrase,it gives the impression that Jesus' friends thought him crazy,not holy. Don't you think that they,as his friends,would have heard of his miraculous birth or that he was the Messiah from his parents,family or Jesus himself?
John 7:3,5,"His brethren said to him. Depart and go into Judea,that thy disciples also may see the works thou do.For neither did his brethren believe in him."
His brethren are his brothers,not his friends,cousins or disciples.His brothers had no belief in him.If the story of the divine revelation of his birth and Messiahship were true,his home would have been filled with wondrous awe.His brothers did not believe in him.It is clear that when James was in contact with Jesus at this point that he knew nothing of Christianity's miraculous event of the virgin birth or Jesus being the supposed Messiah.Why such a lack of knowledge within the family? No secrecy was declared about the happenings. Galations 1:19 does not contradict this because it deals with James at a later date,after the crucifixion,when other factors were involved.
Mark 6:4(Matt 13:57,Luke 4:24,John 4:44),"But Jesus said unto them,a prophet is not without honor,but in his own country,and among his own kin,and in his own house."
We read here that Jesus says his own family did not give respect They lack understanding about who he is? Even though the message was supposedly given to both Mary and Joseph by an angel? Obviously they knew nothing about any miraculous birth nor revelation that he is the Messiah even though the NT says they did.Why isn't anything mentioned in the other books? Paul's writings predate the others ,yet not a word.
The fact is that there is no virgin birth prophesy.When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. In order to fully understand what missionaries mean by a dual prophecy, let's first explain why the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's use of this verse as a proof-text of his virgin birth story.
It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman." Let's now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14.
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the
hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Syrian kingdom. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear.
Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand - the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their
attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. Let's read Isaiah 7:1-16:
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king
of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of
Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage
war against it. And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has
allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people
trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. And the
Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son
to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's
field. And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not
fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of
firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rizin and Aram and the son of
Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah,
saying: `Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and
let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.' So said the Lord
God, `Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass...'" And the Lord
continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord,
your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." And Ahaz
said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." And he said, "Listen
now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my
God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; Behold
the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call
his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad
and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and
choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance could Ahaz, who was surrounded
by to overwhelming military enemies, find in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would long be dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16 we see that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context
of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew's complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. This child that was born contemporaneously, the first leg of this dual prophecy, was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, however, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus' "virgin birth" about 2,000 years ago. With this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved. Or is it?
The troubles created by this explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of
a second fulfillment.2 The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical. and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.
Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time? Were there two virgin births? That is to
say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha'almah can only mean a virgin in chapter seven even though Isaiah uses the actual word b'thulah in his book a few time. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?
Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad? Remember, Isaiah 7:14-16 reads:
(14) Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; "Behold the
young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his
name Immanuel. (15) Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject
bad and choose good. (16) For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad
and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
If Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby-Jesus mature? Who were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime who were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does any of this make any sense? It doesn't because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.
Recent Comments