For months now I have been compiling two Biblical Study Guides on “The Birth of Jesus Christ”, one according to Luke-Acts, and the other according to Matthew.
The intent of this project has been to encourage others to study the Bible for themselves regarding this subject. But I’ve been chomping at the bit to talk about what I’m personally seeing in the Bible as it relates to this matter.
I don’t believe the Virgin Birth Doctrine.
So many think the Bible puts forth the notion that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin, without having been known by a man, but I firmly believe that is not the case at all.
Rather, I believe that it is a teaching of man that has been handed down over the centuries and that notion was worked into various English translations of a few key verses. But the source texts tell a different story.
I believe very few people ever question this doctrine because it is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that must be accepted in order to profess oneself to be a Christian. And if one questions the teaching, he/she is instantly shunned and treated as if he/she has denied Jesus as being the Christ.
But denying the Virgin Birth doctrine does not necessitate a denial of Jesus’ position as the Christ. On the contrary, the most well-known criteria put forth all throughout the Bible is that the Christ is to be a physical seed of David, which naturally occurs by way of a man of the house of David knowing a woman and her conceiving and bringing forth a son.
I believe much of Judaism rejects Christianity primarily due to this one monumental tenet, and sadly, because they think the New Testament purports this notion, many have tossed that testimony out.
But I boldly declare the New Testament does not propose a Virgin Birth as it is taught in mainstream Christianity. Rather, it strongly testifies of a natural born Messiah out of the house of David.
Without going into great detail of the specifics on this post, I’d like to share what I think the nativity passages are actually putting forth.
According to Luke
In the opening chapter of Luke, the author introduces the foretelling of the conception and birth of John the Baptist, stating the mission of this child is to fulfill a greatly anticipated prophecy.
Upon hearing the news, Zacharias, an Aaronic priest, doubts the possibility of his wife conceiving and bringing forth a son at such an advanced age, despite the precedent of Abraham and Sarah conceiving and bringing forth Isaac in their old age.
Then the author segue-ways into the foretelling of the conception and birth of Jesus, stating the destiny of that child to be a fulfillment of an even greater prophecy, the bringing forth of the Messiah.
Unlike Zacharias, the virgin Mary, who was espoused to Joseph of the house of David, receives the news in faith.
While I believe she questions the circumstance surrounding the destiny of this child, I don’t believe she questions how the conception will take place or who the father of this son will be. I believe she understood full well that this child would be that of the man to whom she was espoused.
Mary is told of the circumstance of her kinswoman, Elisabeth being pregnant in her old age, as a sign I believe, to bolster her faith that what the messenger of the LORD said considering her future child’s destiny would indeed come to pass. Then Mary quickly goes to visit the house of Zacharias and stays with Elisabeth for three months.
In that time, I do not believe Mary conceived, since the author never indicated such. Rather, it was some time after Mary returned home, that she conceives. And I believe that conception happened naturally after having been known by her husband, particularly since the author never specifically states otherwise.
According to Matthew
In the opening chapter of Matthew, the author lays the groundwork of his book by stating the physical genealogy of Jesus, identified as the Christ (or Messiah), being the son of David, son of Abraham, by way of his father Joseph.
After singling out several women in the lineage, known for being (1) a widow who disguised herself as a prostitute in order to conceive children for her deceased husband, (2) a harlot rescued from Jericho, (3) a Moabite widow who was redeemed by a kinsman in order to conceive a child for her deceased husband, and (4) another man’s wife, whose husband was killed shortly after she was found to have conceived from being known by the king, the author reveals the mother of Jesus to be one who was espoused to her husband before their coming together…essentially she was a virgin before having been known by her man.
The author proceeds to explain that when Mary, his mother, was found with child of holy spirit, her husband Joseph, being righteous and unwilling to make a show or example of her, minded privately to send her away.
The author was not dropping a bombshell here, suggesting this child Mary was holding in her womb was that of God as opposed to being that of her husband. That makes zero sense. Rather, the child she was carrying was understood to be holy–set apart for a particular purpose, namely to be the greatly anticipated Messiah, son of David.
But while Joseph thought on these things, a messenger of the LORD (YHVH) appeared to him in a dream identifying him as a son of David and telling him to not be afraid to take to himself his wife, for that which is begotten in her of spirit is holy, and that she would bring forth a son and he was to be named “Jesus” (or “Yehoshua”) for he would save his people from their sins.
There was never any question over Joseph and Mary’s marital status. She was betrothed to him before their coming together. And as far as the conception of the child, that naturally took place after they came together.
Then, evidently, the author of Matthew saw a similarity between what was happening with Joseph and what transpired in Isaiah’s day when the LORD God gave a sign to the house of David during the days of King Ahaz, so he called the reader’s attention to Isaiah 7:14.
I do not believe that sign in Isaiah was a messianic prophecy in that the “son” referenced in that sign was to be prophetic of the Messiah. Rather, I believe the author sought to convey how the conception and birth of the Messiah was a demonstration of how God was with His people Israel, by raising up a horn of salvation in the house of David as promised throughout the Prophets would take place following the Babylonian removal.
After Joseph woke from his dream, he did as the messenger instructed and took to himself Mary his pregnant wife but did not know her until the bringing forth of her son, her firstborn. And then he named the child “Jesus/Yehoshua” (or “Yeshua”), which means “YHVH is salvation”.
The author of Matthew states in the next two verses that the child was born in Bethlehem, confirming what the author of Luke stated in chapter 2 of his book. It seems to me that it was possible that when Joseph considered sending his wife away (or dismissing her), this was when he was preparing to travel to Bethlehem for the enrollment.
He was likely concerned for her welfare, knowing it was foretold by the priest Zacharias that a horn of salvation was being raised up in the house of David, and the teachers of the law understood the anticipated Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
[EDIT 3/22/24: I now believe, Joseph minded to send Mary away in accordance to an Essene custom of that day where men would not accompany their pregnant wives so as not to be seen as marrying for pleasure, instead of for progeny.]
This conclusion is based on putting these two accounts together. But even if that is not what was going on in Joseph’s mind when he minded to send her away, I don’t believe he ever questioned who the father of this child was or that his intention was ever to divorce her.
So, there you have it.
I don’t believe the Virgin Birth Doctrine because I’ve studied the Bible (and continue to do so), and the Bible screams of a natural descent for the Messiah.
Now, if those who claim the Bible to be their authority would just test this out for themselves, and then bear witness of their findings, then maybe the tide can be turned on this false doctrinal stronghold.
And those who are still waiting on the Messiah to come will be given a fair opportunity to recognize the Jesus of the New Testament to be that man. At least, that is my hope.
But as for me, this is my story, and I’m sticking to it.
What say you?
I want to address some of the verses above you have used to support your story and hopefully, YHUH (Yahuh) willing, change your mind on your story.
18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18-20 KJV 1611 Authorized Cambridge Edition)
The customs of the Jews back then were quite different than our present-day societal norms. You see, if a spouse or significant was suspected of adultery—which is quite the heinous act—he/she may be sent out with a “bill of divorcement” (Deuteronomy 24:1-3). It is permissible. Elohim himself states it in Jeremiah 3:8—”And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” That being said, all cases stated in the Bible are, however, are all about an adulteress rather than an adulterer. Another Jewish custom that is foreign to us is that bethrothal is considered a legal marriage, though it is not yet consummated. This custom is further elaborated by Jeffrey J. Harrison from To The Ends of The Earth: “Yoseph and Miriam (Mary) are legally considered a family unit. If accepted by the husband, the child became legally part of the family, which Yoseph did when he “took” Miriam (Mary) as his wife”.
Now it says Yoseph was a just man and he did not want to make Miriam (Mary) “a publick example” but rather wanted to “put her away privily”, that is, to put her aside privately by canceling their betrothal (archaic term: espoused). Why? Because they had not “come together yet”. He had not, to put it in biblical terms, yet “known” his wife. Note the previous verses above where YHUH (Yahuh) had “put her (Israel) away” for committing adultery by worshipping false idols; the context of the words here is the same as in Yoseph’s scenario. It was (and still is) shameful to be promiscuous, particularly when bethrothed (see Genesis 38:24-26, Tamar was bethrothed to Shelah but was three months later thought to “play the harlot” as she was “found to be with child by whoredom”) or married. Heaps of shame, judgement, and jeering would come to Miriam (Mary) from the community if her alleged promiscuity was made public. Her life would be nearly destroyed, for she would carry that reputation for the rest of her life. In the case of Tamar, her punishment for adultery while betrothed would have been this: “And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt” (Genesis 38:24). This situation was troubling Yoseph so much that an angel of YHUH (Yahuh) came to him in a dream to tell him not to fear taking Miriam (Mary) as a wife. All of this, combined with the statements above that “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost (Ruakh haKodesh) and “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost (Ruakh haKodesh)” point to a virgin birth. Indeed, if you go a few verses down it reads:
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:22-25 KJV 1611 Authorized Cambridge Edition)
The dream cleared up Yoseph’s fears about taking Miriam (Mary) as his wife, as he was divinely told that she was innocent of adultery and that the birth of her son was to fulfill Elohim’s prophecy. It was only after this that he took her to be his wife. “And he knew her not”—meaning he did not consummate their marriage until Yahusha was born. The word “knew” used here is G1097 in Strong’s Greek Lexicon, and if you look biblical uses are:
to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
to become known
to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
to understand
to know
*Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
to become acquainted with, to know
I have starred the meaning of the word being used in the context here. Yahusha was therefore born of a virgin. This site (http://jaymack.net/genesis-commentary/Jf-Tamar-Birth-Twin-Boys.asp) also has some great analysis on the genealogy of both Yoseph and Miriam (Mary); it shows that there is no possibility that Yahusha could be descended from Yoseph, because if he was, he could not be king due to Jehoakim’s curse that “for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:18-30). But however, “the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Genesis 49:10). Yahusha haMashiakh is indeed from the house of Yahudah (Judah), through Miriam (Mary) and through his adoptive father, Yoseph. Please note also that the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-16 that it does not state that Yoseph “begat” (G1080) Yahusha as it consistently does with Yoseph’s forefathers who begat sons. Begat (G1080) being from a variation of 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:–bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring. Instead, it states that “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”—of (G1537) whom (G3739) was born is used, not the begat (G1080) constantly used 39 times in the genealogy. Why the difference, if Yoseph is truly the bilological father? I implore you to rethink your position on this “doctrine” for the Bible points it out to be so. I do not know how you came to the conclusion, perhaps by being disillusioned that the “doctrine” is being distastefully and appallingly applied to the various false religions that have sprung from the pagan triad of Semiramis, Nimrod, and Cush, but I am still a bit curious to see how you did. Shalam!
Hi Shar,
Thank you for your comment.
Taking into account what you are saying, I think there are a couple of points that I think are worth considering:
First, the phrase “before they came together” is directly linked to all that came before it, and not to what came after it, which is what many in the VB doctrinal claim camp understand it to be. See what I shared here: http://messyanic.com/2017/09/13/before-their-coming-together/ and more specifically here: http://messyanic.com/before-their-coming-together.pdf
Secondly, the phrase “to take unto thee Mary thy wife” is not the same as “to take a wife”, or “to take unto thee Mary as thy wife”, which again is what many in the VB doctrinal claim camp understand it to be. Here is what I’ve found in my study on this particular point: http://messyanic.com/to-receive-mary-thy-wife.pdf
I don’t believe Matthew 1:18-20 is speaking about Mary while she was simply espoused to Joseph, as if it was at that time he was thinking of divorcing her before ever having had a marriage ceremony with her.
Rather, I believe this passage is speaking about Mary *after she and Joseph consummated their marriage*, as evidenced not only by her pregnancy and a more proper understanding of the Greek text, but also by the author referring to Joseph as her “husband/man” and the messenger referring to her as Joseph’s “wife/woman” at this point in time.
Third, as far as there being any impropriety or perceived impropriety on Mary’s part, there is nothing in the text that says such. Joseph does not question who the father of the child is that Mary is carrying, and the author never states Joseph is not the father.
While there may be hints of impropriety given by the author when he mentioned Tamar, Rahab and the wife of Uriah in the lineage, there is none given that I can tell when it comes to Mary. On the contrary, the author is clear in stating Mary was espoused to Joseph before their coming together, establishing the fact that she belonged to him, and that she was pregnant with child out of holy spirit, while clearly identifying Joseph and Mary as being husband/man and wife/woman. And then of course, the elephant in the room is that the author lays out a physical genealogy of Jesus being a descendent of Abraham and David by way of Joseph.
I understand the rationale for believing this portion of Matthew to be supporting the virgin birth doctrine, but that is all with the understanding that this event is taking place without Mary ever having been known by Joseph in order to become pregnant.
But the natural order established by the Creator dictates that she got pregnant by way of being known by a man, and clearly the author is identifying Joseph to be that man.
Regarding your last comment and the word most often translated as “begat” (G1080). A variation of that word is used in verse 16, it is translated as “was born”.
It seems to me that the Greek word pertained to the subject of the sentence in the previous 39 uses, and therefore was translated as “begat” as an active verb, but since there was a change in the order of words concerning the last generation of the genealogy, it was translated as “was born” as a passive verb.
This does not mean that the child was only born of the mother without having been begotten of a father. It’s a grammatical thing.
As far as coming to the conclusion that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus, for me it’s rather simple when you stop and think about it:
The Natural Order established from the beginning is that the man knows the woman and with the help of the Creator, she conceives and brings forth life.
Also, there are so many prophecies all throughout the Old Testament that pertain to the physical seed of men, and specific prophecies concerning a physical seed of David being the Messiah.
And the Old Testament clearly reckons children through by way of their father, and when kings in the Davidic dynasty in particular took the throne, they were always sons of David, by way of their father.
Another thing is that while the Virgin Birth Doctrinal claim camp insists Jesus’ conception/birth was miraculous, the New Testament never makes that declaration. In fact, nobody in the NT writings ever refers to Joseph as being anything other than his father/parent. (In other words nobody ever says anything about him having adopted Jesus.)
In the book of Acts and Romans where you see people talking about the origin of Jesus, he is clearly identified as being the physical seed of David, with no mention of him being so through any unusual experience like the “virgin birth doctrine” purports.
The natural conclusion is that Jesus is begotten of Joseph by way of Mary.
Hello. The early Hebrew and Aramaic transcripts show that Joseph was Mary’s Father and not Husband. In Mathew 1:16. Her Fathers name was Joseph and she also had a husband named Joseph. I would suggest if you already haven’t to research the earliest Hebrew and Aramaic transcripts which say in 1:16 that Joseph the father of Mary.
… The Peshitta Aramaic texts of Matthew 1:16 (which was translated from a latter Greek text) indicates that Miriam’s ‘gevra’ (mighty man) was named Yoseph, and Matthew 1:19 specifies that Miriam’s ‘ba’ala’ (husband) was also named Yoseph.
Yoseph is a very common name in Israel. Miriam’s husband Yoseph had three grandfathers with the same name. This undoubtedly led the translators to make “a mistake of familiarity,” thinking that the two “Yosephs” of verses 16 and 19 (in Matthew) were one and the same.
The Greek translators chose to render both Aramaic words gevra and ba’ala as the Greek word ‘aner’, which simply means “a person of full age.” The English translators then chose to translate the singular Greek word ‘aner’ as “husband.” – http://thechronologicalgospels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TCG_NativitySample.pdf (p45).
For further manuscript support for this, see the two images below (courtesy of Nehemia Gordon). These two, of the oldest manuscripts of the Ancient Hebrew Matthew were copied into the appendix of Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut’s “Even Bochan”, and show that the text reads “Yoseph avi Miriam”. The Hebrew and Aramaic ‘avi’ means ‘my father’, so the meaning here is that ‘Yosef is the father of Miriam’ and not the husband, and therefore Matt 1:16 ends with “…Yosef the father of Miriam of whom was born Yeshua”.
Take care, thanks.
Carl.
Hi Carl,
How “early” are the manuscripts to which you are referring? From what I can find on them, they are very late documents.
The notion of there being two different Josephs identified in those few verses both relating to Mary does not make sense to me. The Joseph in verse 18 is named as if the reader is supposed to already know who he is. If this was a different Joseph, then I would have expected the author to have identified who his father was, but he didn’t.
Furthermore, why would the author give the genealogy of Mary when making the point that Yeshua was the son of David, son of Abraham, when everyone knows that the sower of seed is the man, not the woman.
Also, the author makes a point to count 14 generations from the Babylonian removal to the Christ, and making Joseph out to be the grandfather of Yeshua (as opposed to the father) brings the count up to 15 generations, and that doesn’t jive with verse 17.
Thank you for your study, I also don’t believe in the virgin birth doctrine. Glad to know there are others out there. I believe in adoptionism which is that Jehoshua became the only begotten Son at His baptism. Thankfully everyone in our home fellowship denies the virgin birth doctrine
Here are some verses and word study kickstarts to get your wheels turning…
In Psalm 104, we see creation described.
ADONAI, how countless are Your works! In wisdom You made them all— the earth is full of Your creatures.
– Psalms 104:24 TLV
– Psalms 2:7
Young’s Literal Translation
I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, ‘My Son Thou art, I to-day have brought thee forth.
In this verse, “have brought (thee) forth” is H3205. Yalad. Oddly, the first instance of this word is found in Gen. 3:16, (not at the creation of Adam or of mankind) indicating The Son is brought forth from The Father, ie. made of the same substance.
Returning to Psalm 2, we see another tying of The Son/The Anointed One to being something special/different than us.
International Standard Version
“I have set my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”
Young’s Literal Translation
‘And I — I have anointed My King, Upon Zion — My holy hill.’
This word “set” or “anointed” is H5258. Nasakh. One of its definitions (which is tied to many passages about the Son) is: to pour out, pour, offer, cast, to anoint (a king),to be anointed, to pour out (as a libation).
This word ties over to Proverbs 8:23:
American Standard Version
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was.
Young’s Literal Translation
From the age I was anointed, from the first, From former states of the earth.
It is used here for “set” and “anointed”. This chapter is about WISDOM. Verse 22 says Yah possessed wisdom before any creation.
There is a strong biblical tie that The Son and Wisdom were both present AT creation and instrumental in creating (this is only the tip of the iceberg and soooooo worth the deep dive!), and therefore Yeshua is NOT our equal.
It is important to gain a strong Tanakh foundation for understanding John 1:1-18.
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side (Greek: in the Father’s bosom), has made Him known. (Verse 18, BSB)
By ADONAI’s word were the heavens made, and all their host by the breath of His mouth.
– Psalms 33:6 TLV
Yeshua is the Word made flesh. He is a dimmed, veiled form of YHWH, manifested in the flesh.
Expounding on the comments above, it’s very interesting that Joseph’s genealogy breaks tradition and emphasizes some of the mothers. Also, I didn’t see you address the point made by Matthew that Yeshua could not be Joseph’s physical seed because of the curse on Jeconiah’s lineage, so I’ve added the main verses for reference.
“As I live,” declares ADONAI, “even if Coniah[Jeconiah] son of King Jehoiakim of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off, Thus says ADONAI: “Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days. For no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.”
– Jeremiah 22:24,30 TLV
The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, Jehoiakim the second, Zedekiah the third, and Shallum the fourth. The sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah was his son, Zedekiah his son.
– 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 TLV
and Josiah fathered Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the Babylonian exile Jeconiah fathered Shealtiel, Shealtiel fathered Zerubbabel,
– Matthew 1:11-12 TLV
I hope you will take the time to prayerfully research these in truth. Shalom.
Hi Tess!
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to share your thoughts.
RE: The Hebrew word “yalad” (H3205) and its first instance being found in Gen 3:16…
Actually, that “bringing forth” (the first mention) is speaking of the *woman* bringing forth children.
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth (H3205) children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (KJV)
However, we know, naturally speaking, this bringing forth is a result of a man knowing his woman and the woman conceiving. *Then*, the woman brings forth children, as demonstrated in the next occurrence of yalad in Gen 4:1…
“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare (H3205) Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” (KJV)
Aside from what we know about procreation (the birds and the bees), this verse establishes the Biblical case that if Mary brought forth a son, it was the natural result of a man first knowing her, and she conceives that which was sown in her.
It is interesting, though, that Eve credits “the LORD” (YHVH) for having gotten her son (Cain). (It appears that she acknowledged the Creator’s role in the natural procreative process.)
As for the notion of a Father bringing forth (or “begetting”) a Son, I don’t have a problem with that idea either.
However, the Creator doesn’t bring forth “sons” in the same manner as human beings do. The Creator “brings forth” creation by **speaking** (aka his “saying” or “word”), as demonstrated throughout Genesis 1.
“And God said, Let there be…”
“…and there was.” or “…and it was so.”
He also created Adam by way of speaking in verses 26 & 27…
“26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (KJV)
RE: “Yeshua is the Word made flesh. He is a dimmed, veiled form of YHWH, manifested in the flesh.”
I think it’s important to hold fast to the Natural Order established by the Creator in the opening chapters of Genesis concerning how *man* comes into being, and then how *the son of man* comes into being, before attempting to understand what John is saying in his opening verses.
RE: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side (Greek: in the Father’s bosom), has made Him known.” (Verse 18, BSB)
What translation says, “..who is Himself God…”? That doesn’t look right considering what the Greek says and a host of other translations.
The curse on Jechoniah’s line had to do with the end of the consecutive reign of kings in the line of David.
“For no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.”
Hence, the carrying away to Babylon.
The author of Matthew is not saying anything about any invalidity of Yeshua being Joseph’s son by giving that genealogy. He’s making the case that “Yeshua the Messiah” is the son of “David the King” *by way of Joseph*, who is specifically identified by the angel as being the son of David.
And when the author refers back to Isaiah 7 in Matthew 1:23, look at the opening verses of Isaiah 7 to understand why that sign called “Emmanuel” was given in the first place. (Hint: It had to do with the throne of David — and nothing to do with a “virgin”.)
I hope you will take the time to prayerfully research all of this as well. Shalom. 🙂
I have no doubt that we as a group are all Truth-seekers, looking to crawl out from the lies and crazy dogma that Roman Catholic church has handed us, and that we both want to honor Yah and not take His Name in vain. The deceptions these days are ev-er-y-where!!!! It’s thick! And Nuts!!
That said, I’m afraid you’re missing some great pearls hidden in the Word. “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing;
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Prov 25:2 But I am not gifted with writing words, as you are. Conversations are much easier for me…. so if you ever want to chat! 😉
I’m sure this comment won’t go live because I’m going to share a link, but that’s okay. I’ll think on a comment that could get posted as a “proper reply.” I also know that you’re really not interested in listening to any teachers, but I’m going to share something with you that I found really profound (“the Why of it all”) and really helpful in launching my study of who Elohim is (the Divinity series, and FYI, this is a whole-Bible believing church and does NOT follow most Roman Catholic teachings, such as trinity, rapture, etc., and teaches why those are biblically false doctrines). This is a church in the UK, and it’s sister church with Curtis in Canada is also good, but I prefer Michael’s method of teaching. It’s super Bible heavy and it’s spring boarded me into many deeper independent studies that have been really impactful in understanding some of the deeper layers of the Word. The Bible is like an onion. The top layer is often easiest to see, with it also the easiest to peel away to see a deeper layer. But the more you peel away, the more difficult it is and the more it makes me cry! 🙂 I’m certainly no expert, but the Holy Ruach has brought my understanding far from where it was a few years ago (HalleluYah!).
https://youtu.be/xujRjUhAvHk?si=L6O4zJUguKq-tT0k
https://youtu.be/a8d1GdJK4jk?si=rarXooMANnH6SyOi
I haven’t yet finished my order online for hard copies of more Bible study resources (hopefully soon! thanks again for that encouragement!), but I have been working on my Hebrew, word diving on the word “nasah”, and reading Enoch and Jasher and it’s been interesting!!
Love and peace to you both.
I’m in favor of searching out a matter, but I believe it’s necessary to first have a foundation that is based on what is physically true/real & self-evident before going on any spiritual expeditions.
When I began to question what I understood about the Bible, I started seeking out answers to specific questions I had concerning what the Bible said, and that journey took me all over the place. And it was exciting! It was like the book was brand new to me.
I started washing myself in it, and I began to read whole books from start to finish. And I eventually, naturally went back to the beginning and started reading from Genesis forward with a new, open mind.
When I did so, I realized so much of what I was taught in my Christian upbringing was baggage that was hindering me from seeing all that was plainly written on the page. So I began to unload that baggage.
I set the New Testament aside and focused only on reading the Old Testament as if the New Testament was never penned. And that was very freeing.
(I didn’t stop “believing in Jesus”, I simply stopped applying all that I had learned about him to what I was reading, so that I could get a clearer understanding of what was being stated on the page. And then, I ultimately was better equipped to understand the New Testament when I dove back into it.)
I’m afraid a lot of Bible teachers have carried a lot of baggage with them when exploring what the Bible has to say, and in their desire to want to share what they have learned, they do so with their baggage in hand.
This is why I have a hard time listening to teachers online, particularly when they are not available to answer my questions and are not always being held accountable for what they are saying.
Most people operate from a paradigm that has been shaped by premises that have never been questioned by them or sought to be proven as accurate.
And one of those premises when it comes to Messianic Bible teachings is the notion that Jesus was essentially Superman, and that he is “the Word” of God in some supernatural way.
The problem is these are notions that have been accepted despite the fact that the world fashioned by the “God” of Genesis 1:1 has an established order to it.
This order was laid out for the Bible reader in the verses that follow the initial statement, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” And it is self-evident and universal.
“Sons of man” are the physical offspring of a *man* and a woman. A man “knows” a woman (sows his seed in her), she conceives (lays hold of that seed), and with the help of God (the source of all Life), she brings forth a child in due season.
It takes *two* human beings to produce another human being. This is the natural order established by the God of Genesis 1:1.
Furthermore, a human being does not come alive until God breathes life into him/her. Again, that is established in Genesis 2:7 and then evidently Eve understood that it was God who gave her Cain, Abel & Seth in Genesis 4:1,25.
This phenomenon of newborn infants getting their breath/spirit from a higher power than their own biological parents is also self-evident and universal, apart from the Bible.
We have to let the Natural Order be our basis for understanding anything & everything else in this world, and then let the beginning of the Bible, particularly Genesis, be the basis for understanding everything else that comes after it in the Bible, especially when the authors who pen their writings are doing so.
(NOTE: The book of John is most emphatically addressing Genesis 1, and more specifically the actions of God speaking our world into existence through the power of His word. Genesis 1 is the FOUNDATION of John’s writings, not the other way around.)
I appreciate your passion to seek out Truth but I disagree with your naturalist view and assumptions. There are countless miracles in the Word that go against the laws of this land. I agree that we need to start at the front of the Book and gain a strong understanding before trying to understand the back of the Book. We should also be careful to examine the foundations of our knowledge and understanding because I agree, we’ve been handed some pretty awful deceptions from Christians who were they themselves deceived. We should never put Elohim in a box. I’m afraid you are misunderstanding and missing some really beautiful pieces of the redemption plan. I’m sure we will both keep digging! Blessings and peace.
So, what is your basis by which you measure truth, if it is not the natural world & its natural order? How do you know a miracle is of God as opposed to being of some other origin? Do you simply rely on what feels right to you? Also, how do you know if the text you hold in your hand is not without error? After all, it’s been handled by men over millennia. What makes you think you can trust its content as being pure & unadulterated?
I ask these questions because I think it’s important to consider the security measures that our Creator put in place by establishing the world we live in with its natural law and order. This is how we learn — through observations and natural consequences to the actions of all those operating within it. I think it’s extremely dangerous to navigate outside this realm without having an anchor in it.
The Elohim of Genesis 1 established the box in which He made mankind to operate…and He saw all that He had made, and deemed it very good. And when He was done with all that He had made, He ceased that work.
Shalom, I agree with your post. However, I’m curious if you believe the Messiah existed prior to his physical conception. I’ve heard John 1:1 explained as Messiah being the Word (instructions of the Most High) made flesh, making him the embodiment of the Most High’s instructions proved by him keeping Torah perfectly.
Shalom, Derek. 🙂 Thanks for stopping by & commenting.
What do you mean when you say “the Messiah” in asking your question concerning pre-existence?
Are you referring to the position or the person in that position?
If you mean the position of the Messiah, then yes, I believe that position existed prior to the physical conception of a man. I believe the order of Creation was designed in the mind of the Creator prior to His calling any of it into existence.
If you mean the person in that position, then let me first ask, did we (you & I) exist prior to our physical conception?
According to the Bible, YHVH is considered to be the God of the spirits of all flesh. (See Numbers 16:22, 27:16.) And we’re told that it is God who gives us each our spirit, and when we “give up the ghost” our spirit returns from whence it came. (See Ecclesiastes 12:7)
Given this, I understand *the spirit of* a person exists prior to his/her conception, but it is not until the body/flesh & spirit comes together that a human being comes into existence. And then, depending on the choices made by that human being, only time will tell what positions he/she will hold in the grand scheme of things.
I say all of this, apart from John 1:1, because I don’t believe that the author of John is saying what most people think he’s saying in his opening verses. (I’ll address that part of your comment separately.)
What is John 1:1 really saying if you don’t mind me asking?
I’m in the process of revising some posts I made 8 years ago on this subject — updating them with my current understanding. I address John 1:1 in my post entitled “In the Beginning was the Word, Part 1“.
The short answer is: in John 1:1 the author is drawing the reader’s attention back to Genesis 1 referring to what was common knowledge concerning the creation of the world, beginning with “the Light”. And then later in the chapter (& beyond) the author identifies Yeshua as figuratively being the Light of the world.
For starters, Psalm 2 is primarily regarding King David. He was certainly not born of a virgin and yet is still a begotten son who received a very specific covenant concerning his PHYSICAL seed. Scripture is loaded with context surrounding that specific covenant. If you are to research anything before the manmade fold between the Old and New Testaments, that is key to understanding Scripture past the pagan Roman Catholic dogma of the virgin birth.