The Virgin Birth: A response to an invite to view a YouTube video...

I'm assuming you've read some of my posts and must have thought that these might help persuade me to a different conclusion regarding Jesus. Again, this is an assumption, and if I am wrong let me know.

I had left a number of comments on the "fulfilled prophecies" video page which were deleted shortly after. I guess the videos were only for fanboys of Jesus. And for the record, I was a fanboy for the first 33 years of my life, so I am intimately familiar with the source and context of such sentiments, and can only pray and dialog to perhaps persuade some to actually think about these claims they have learned and now believe.

I don't believe my comments were rude or derisive. They pointed out the basic problem with the "truth" claims which were set to some Christian Worship/U2/Brian Doerksen like music. I will share with you my concerns and objections to just one point on their first claim concerning Jesus' "virgin birth" in Isaiah 7:14.

All Christian scholars acknowledge that Isaiah 7:14 was not only fulfilled in Matthew 2, but was firstly fulfilled in Isaiah's time.. The Prophet was assuring Ahaz, king of Judah:

Is. 7:1 ¶ When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
Is. 7:2 ¶ Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

God asks Ahaz to request a sign from God for assurance that He will deliver him. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, not wanting to test the Lord. Isaiah rebukes him and proclaims the sign God will give to Ahaz so that Ahaz will know God will keep His word.

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

But it continues...

Is. 7:15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
Is. 7:16 But 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.

This demonstrates that the king would be alive to see this happen.

Then in Isaiah 8:

Is. 8:1 ¶ Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.
Is. 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
Is. 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
Is. 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria....

Is. 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

This is the uncontested primary fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. The secondary (Christian) "distant future" fulfillment is in Matthew 1.

This raises several points that are important in considering whether or not this prophecy has anything to do with Jesus:

1) There is no NEED for two fulfillments. That it was fulfilled in Isaiah's time is all that's necessary. The "dual" fulfillment is created for Christian purposes only. By that, I mean, that a Christian cannot use this as "proof" of anything about Jesus. It was already fulfilled, and the idea that it had a second purpose is only supposition. If another religion came along and used similar techniques to prove their "prophet" correct and consistent with New Testament claims... let's say Mohammed or Joseph Smith, Christians would be throwing communion crackers in the air for such specious methods of interpretation which contradict their classical Christian interpretations. Imagine taking a New Testament "prophecy" which you believe was fulfilled at that time, let's say Jesus' sign of Jonas for the resurrection... and someone claimed that it also means something else in their own religion. You'd think such an interpretation was ridiculous. And you'd be correct. It would be ridiculous.

2) The video begins by assuring the viewer that the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that these prophecies were written many years before Jesus, and therefore it can't be argued that these prophecies were created after Jesus came. In fact, the Isaiah scroll, among the first to be viewed (at the beginning of the war launched on Israel when the U.N. declared it a nation in 1948), settled an old argument between Christian and Jewish scholars regarding "the virgin." Judaism's copies of the Masoretic text, although newer than copies of Isaiah kept by the Church (Jewish scribes continued the practice of copying Torah scrolls), used the Hebrew word for "young woman" or "damsel." Christian scholars insisted that this was changed by the Rabbis to write Jesus out of their Scriptures, seeing that the Christian copies of Isaiah, much older, were using the Hebrew for "virgin." Dead Sea Scrolls settled the argument, but Christians still want their "virgin" in there, so they then point to the Septuagint, claiming that the Jews who produced it, translated the text to the Greek for "virgin," meaning that the Hebrew text at the time most have been "virgin." However, the Jews who created the Septuagint only translated Torah, the first five books of Moses. It was later Christian scholars who translated the remainder of the "Old Testament" into Greek.

3) If the Christian claim about Mary's virginity is correct, we have a significant problem. That fulfillment was secondary. If the correct secondary fulfillment of the text requires Mary to be a virgin because the prophecy says "virgin" then the primary fulfillment must also mean a virgin. Two virgin births? So according to Christianity, there MUST be TWO virgin births if there is supposed to be one. Don't remember that in Sunday School.

4) The primary fulfillment (agreed to by even Christian scholars) was fulfilled by Isaiah's wife with the birth to ANOTHER second son. ANOTHER SON? She was a prophetess. She was married to Isaiah. Their first son was named "Shear-Jashub" (Isa 7:3). Therefore, SHE WAS NOT A VIRGIN. If the original prophecy said "young woman" than this makes sense. If it was a "virgin" than Isaiah's wife doesn't work. This means no assurance to Ahaz.

5) If the belief at that time was that a "virgin" would give birth (as I've heard Messianics claim), why would Mary and Joseph try to hide the fact that Mary was NOT impregnated by Joseph. This is SUPPOSED to be a sign for the Nation of Israel (and the WORLD!!) that he's the messiah. Instead they hide this "sign" which then makes it not a sign.... because you can't prove it afterward. I say this facetiously, but imagine how many good little Jewish girls were saying, "But I didn't have sex... I'm carrying the Messiah!"

6) Follow this. The earliest writings of the New Testament are NOT the gospel accounts. Paul's epistle's are. Does Paul ever use the "virgin birth" to prove his theology which is used by Christians to "prove" Christ's divinity. Certainly, the "virgin birth" would not only fit well in this, it later became "essential" to the claim of Christ's divinity and thus his position as second person of the trinity. Paul travelled with Luke, who thoroughly investigated his narrative of Jesus... Luke even says so (Lk 1). Yet Paul never mentions the virgin birth. Of course, Luke's well investigated life of Christ missed the trip to Egypt, Magi, Herod, the death of many, many children, which had it actually happened, the Jews would have memorialized such a massive tragic event. Also, Luke missed 95% of the Gospel of John. Good investigation, bud. I think it's interesting that Paul says this in Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead..." Paul seems to be under the impression that Jesus was made of Davidic seed (from Joseph, the only connection to King David given in the New Testament). Paul NEVER even hints, NOT ONCE, in all of his writings that Jesus was the result of god-seed. Jesus' "Son of God" status was obtained from the resurrection, not his conception. And the Son of God status, shouldn't necessarily be understood to being "God," even as Adam, Israel and angels are all called "Sons of God" but are not God. Eusebius (along with a number of the Church Fathers) makes it clear that the Jews who believed in Jesus as messiah, did NOT believe that he was divine in nature, born of a virgin, etc. These Jews continued to observe Torah, with a "Jesus-twist." This ultimately lead to a clear division between Jewish and Gentile believers after the destruction of the Temple, as it was clear that the Gentiles were determined to interpret what "writings" they had in their possession, in a way that was more congruent with the religions they emerged from and clearly left the pattern of Torah and the Prophets of Israel.

7) Do we even have to mention the claim that Jesus fulfilled the part about being called Immanuel? Not once is Jesus EVER called Immanuel, except where it says that he fulfilled the Isaiah prophecy about being called Immanuel. Now, before you argue that Isaiah's son was not named Immanuel either, I already concede that to be true. I am not a scholar of Hebrew, nor learned in the details of Jewish interpretation on this (although I think I will now research that), but I do know the Tanakh (Judaism's Bible) translates into the phrase "Let her (the mother) name him Immanuel," and in chapter 8, God specifically tells Isaiah (not his wife) to name him differently. Regardless, the New Testament translates the phrase into "and THEY will call him Immanuel." Not only does it fail to quote the passage correctly, but (and back to the original point) makes a claim of fulfillment that never was fulfilled. No one EVER called Jesus "Immanuel." So what we are left with, in so far as fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 is a virgin birth, that clearly was NOT originally prophesied. And while this may be dismissed with the wave a hand by most Christians, remember: Anyone who does not acknowledge the VIRGIN birth of Jesus is NOT a true Christian. In spite of practically no reasonable New Testament support (beside the nativity stories) for this claim, it nonetheless rises to the top of the list of Christian fundamental beliefs. If you don't believe this, regardless of what else you may believe about Jesus, you are going to hell.

8) The "prophecy" does not fall within a clear messianic context, as can more easily be seen in other passages where it uses words associated with the time of the messiah. No mention of "the Branch of Jesse" or "in those days..." or "in the last days..." etc. In fact, contextually, this "child" must reject the bad and choose the good. If it is about Jesus, who Christians claim is God, this is an impossibility, as God does not need to make such choices... humans do. So the only element remaining that actually has anything to do with Mary and Jesus is... well... nothing.

9) And maybe my last point. And this is perhaps more theoretical evidence than about "Scriptural" evidence. In the days of Noah, angels (and I'm going to keep this simple) came down, had intercourse with women and the women gave birth to "giants", "heroes." Understandably, this may sound fantastical to some. It also relates that this did not only happen at that time (before the flood) but later as well (Gen 6:4). What is so surprising is that whether or not you believe this, what we end up with is a large number of religions ALL having similar claims: Their gods came down from heaven and had sex with women and gave birth to those who were in some way extraordinary. We see this, most famously in Greek religion (strangely, and wrongly called mythology, it was a religion). Zeus is a bit of a philanderer, producing a number of greek heroes. We may question whether these stories are accurate, as far as the telling of them. But they all "smell" of Genesis 6. A study of ancient religions produces a variety of examples of such "relationships." A famous one, several millennia before Jesus, was Krishna. Parallels between the two stories are eerily similar. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find copies of the ancient books of Noah and/or Enoch (I can't find my DSS translations right off hand and it's been a while since I looked into this, sorry), and other DSS writings which claim that false religion (the occult) began with these angel/human interactions which were first recorded in Genesis. DSS even give names of the angelic beings involved. Think of all the religions which Israel came into contact with down through the ages. Ancient Canaanite religions, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek/Roman systems, etc. What was God's opinion? Read the prophets. It was Israel's involvement with these "false" religions and their practices which caused exile and destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem itself. Also, read the judgements against the nations and kings who will be used by God to first punish Israel, and then God would wipe them out because they would always do more harm to Israel than God gave them permission to do...God says "You are not a god, you are a man." These religions all have examples of such abominations. The unique system of Torah (Jewish Law) makes the following claims: God was not a man NOR born from man (Num 23:19), and it is a sin to even imagine God in the form of a man (Deut 4:16). One or both of these elements are an inherent part of ALL the false religions Israel encountered! And so we have God creating this very clear instruction for Israel to follow ALWAYS, and God fulfilling his promise to punish Israel should they wander after these foreign gods. And then what does God do? According to Christianity, God goes to a human woman, doesn't just perform a miraculous birth by her having a fertilized egg in her womb (a seed of David), God actually gives "god-seed" just like Zeus did, so that her child is "fully god, fully man," the ultimate messiah (my mind feels dirty even thinking about this)!!! And then pictures and statues fill Christian places of worship and their homes and in their Bibles of someone they claim to be the same god as the God of Israel! This makes no sense whatsoever. Condemnation from the beginning of Genesis through to Malachi for such abominations, and Christians think that this god-man Jesus fits neatly into God's plan? It's as crazy as saying that God gave the Law, knowing we can't keep it, condemns us for not keeping it, sends Jesus, and then if we believe in him, we can then do the very things (break God's Laws) that previously would have sent us to hell! Oh, except the 10 commandments of course.

Hmmm.... Rachel weeping for her children... do you really want me to tackle that now?