Embedded Files
God or Son? Jesus Is God? THE FOURTH MAN Yahshua: Did He Pre-exist? Yahshua Came Down From Heaven Can A Spirit Being Die?
Yahshua's Glory Before the Foundation of the World Did Our Saviour Pre-exist? Yahshua A Man The Greek Word Logos Yahshua: Son Of Elohim Hebrews 1:12
The 2nd Psalm - Pre-existence? The Pre-existence Yahshua's Pre-existence "One And The Same Being?" ONE LONE YAHWEH Oneness Matthew 28:19 ECHAD And Pre-existence New Covenant And Sabbath
YHWH Did Yahshua Create? Who Is The Word? Who Raised Yahshua From The Dead? The Word of Yahweh The First & The Last Yeshua Is Not Yahowah The Holy Spirit Is An It
Elohim: Singular Or Plural? TWO YAHWEHS? Did The Father And Son Have The Same Name? Are You A Nicolaitane? Should Believers Be Vegetarians? Voy Wilks On STDs Can A Spirit Being Die?
Who Was Cain's Wife? Santa God Sabbath Church Confessions House of Yahweh - Abilene, Texas TRM Wine Or Grape Juice?
The Name Jesus "Jesus IS God!" Links Eternal Virgin? THE TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS The Epistle Dedicatory To The 1611 Authorized Version Isaiah 9:6
..............................................................................
Rare Medical Cases of Virgin Births- While historic accounts of virgin births are often anecdotal, there have been recorded instances of virgin births in a medical context.
Case Study 1: The Ghonadotropins - In 1958, a 35-year-old woman in the United States was treated for a tumor that was producing human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone that stimulates ovulation. As a result, she became pregnant without a male partner’s involvement.
Case Study 2: The use of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) - In the 1980s, a 42-year-old woman in the United Kingdom became pregnant through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using donor sperm. The child was born healthy and well, without any known biological father.
FEATURED LINKS:
The Supposed Pre-existence of Jesus Christ The fact that we refer to this subject is brought on by two teachings. The first is that Jesus Christ was, (supposedly) the eternal Son of God, who has existed with the Father since time began, or, secondly, that the Lord Jesus is supposedly ‘god the Son’, the alleged second person of the Trinity. It is important to know the truth, for our salvation depends on it.
Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line * Yigal Levin
Bart Ehrman Was Jesus really the son of God or actually the son of Joseph?
Bart Ehrman Was Jesus of Nazareth the ONLY miracle- working Son of God to be born of a Virgin?
Bart Ehrman The Virgin Birth and Jesus’ Brothers
Virgin Birth Was Not Prophesied Joseph Francis Alward October 2, 1997
MORE LINKS AT END OF ARTICLES
The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80–100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew. In the Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" – Mark 6:4, which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" – John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" – John 6:42). These quotations, incidentally, are in direct opposition to the suggestion that Jesus was, or was believed to be, illegitimate: Philip and the Jews know that Jesus had a human father, and that father was Joseph. This raises the question of where the authors of Matthew and Luke found their stories. It is almost certain that neither was the work of an eyewitness. In view of the many inconsistencies between them neither is likely to derive from the other, nor did they share a common source. Raymond E. Brown suggested in 1973 that Joseph was the source of Matthew's account and Mary of Luke's, but modern scholars consider this "highly unlikely" given that the stories emerged so late. It follows that the two narratives were created by the two writers, drawing on ideas in circulation at least a decade before the gospels were composed, to perhaps 65-75 or even earlier. Matthew presents the ministry of Jesus as largely the fulfilment of prophecies from the Book of Isaiah, and Matthew 1:22-23, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son...", is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, "...the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the maiden is with child and she will bear a son..." But in the time of Jesus the Jews of Palestine no longer spoke Hebrew, Isaiah was translated into Greek, and Matthew uses the Greek word parthenos, which does mean virgin, for the Hebrew almah, which scholars agree signifies a girl of childbearing age without reference to virginity. This mistranslation gave the author of Matthew the opportunity to interpret Jesus as the prophesied Immanuel, God is with us, the divine representative on earth.
Jesus was not born of a virgin.
Jesus was not born of a virgin.
There is no known manuscript or fragment of Isaiah 7:14 in which בתולה "a virgin" was used instead of עלמה "a young maiden." St. Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho shows that second century Jews did not interpret עלמה as a virgin. The passage probably should be read naturally: "the young woman will conceive and give birth to a son," as indicated by the context, without excluding a possibility that the young woman might be a virgin.
There is no known manuscript or fragment of Isaiah 7:14 in which בתולה "a virgin" was used instead of עלמה "a young maiden." St. Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho shows that second century Jews did not interpret עלמה as a virgin. The passage probably should be read naturally: "the young woman will conceive and give birth to a son," as indicated by the context, without excluding a possibility that the young woman might be a virgin.
Almah (עַלְמָה ‘almāh, plural: עֲלָמוֹת ‘ălāmōṯ), from a root implying the vigour of puberty, is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age. Despite its importance to the Christian tradition of the virgin birth of Jesus, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah
Almah (עַלְמָה ‘almāh, plural: עֲלָמוֹת ‘ălāmōṯ), from a root implying the vigour of puberty, is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age. Despite its importance to the Christian tradition of the virgin birth of Jesus, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah
Elite Alma Sugar-Free Spearmint Gum (28g) - World of Judaica
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.' (Isaiah 7:14 - Good News Translation).
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.' (Isaiah 7:14 - Good News Translation).
For this reason, the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14 - NET Bible).
For this reason, the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14 - NET Bible).
Therefore, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14 - JPS Tanakh 1917).
Therefore, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14 - JPS Tanakh 1917).
"[Jesus] was MADE like his brothers IN EVERY RESPECT." (RSV) …For this reason he had to be MADE like them, fully human IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and FAITHFUL high priest IN SERVICE TO GOD, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2:17 - NIV). https://biblehub.com/hebrews/2-17.htm
"[Jesus] was MADE like his brothers IN EVERY RESPECT." (RSV) …For this reason he had to be MADE like them, fully human IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and FAITHFUL high priest IN SERVICE TO GOD, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2:17 - NIV). https://biblehub.com/hebrews/2-17.htm
The Apostles of Jesus Seem to Have Known Nothing about a Virgin Birth
The Apostles of Jesus Seem to Have Known Nothing about a Virgin Birth
The earliest mention of the birth of Jesus to be written is not the nativity stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans. He wrote it after having met with Peter and others who had known in person not only Jesus but also his mother and brothers. Despite learning from them everything they could tell him about Jesus, Paul shows no sign of having heard of a virgin birth. Instead, he wrote that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” and was declared to be the Son of God not through any special birth that Paul mentions but by his resurrection (Romans 1:3-4).
The earliest mention of the birth of Jesus to be written is not the nativity stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans. He wrote it after having met with Peter and others who had known in person not only Jesus but also his mother and brothers. Despite learning from them everything they could tell him about Jesus, Paul shows no sign of having heard of a virgin birth. Instead, he wrote that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” and was declared to be the Son of God not through any special birth that Paul mentions but by his resurrection (Romans 1:3-4).
The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, suggesting that Jesus had a virgin birth in Bethlehem (the birthplace of David), were composed later and even his own apostles showed no indication of knowing anything about it. SOURCE
The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, suggesting that Jesus had a virgin birth in Bethlehem (the birthplace of David), were composed later and even his own apostles showed no indication of knowing anything about it. SOURCE
Comment:
I find it strange that something so extraordinary as a "virgin birth" was never mentioned by Paul in his writing of letters (epistles) when they take up the greater part of the "New Testament." And on top of that, it is only mentioned in a few verses of the books of Matthew and Luke which could have been easily altered in support of a "virgin birth" and the so-called "Holy Trinity" doctrines. There is no mention of a virgin birth in the other two gospel accounts or in any other books of the 'New Testament.'
I find it strange that something so extraordinary as a "virgin birth" was never mentioned by Paul in his writing of letters (epistles) when they take up the greater part of the "New Testament." And on top of that, it is only mentioned in a few verses of the books of Matthew and Luke which could have been easily altered in support of a "virgin birth" and the so-called "Holy Trinity" doctrines. There is no mention of a virgin birth in the other two gospel accounts or in any other books of the 'New Testament.'
As H.R. Mackintosh (1870-1936), a famous Christian theologian in Scotland, wrote in “Three Essays” The Expository Times (editor James Hastings) (1901) Vol. 12 at 350: "As to [Christ’s] Virgin Birth, we must say either that [Paul] knew nothing about it, or that he speaks in terms which exclude it." SOURCE
As H.R. Mackintosh (1870-1936), a famous Christian theologian in Scotland, wrote in “Three Essays” The Expository Times (editor James Hastings) (1901) Vol. 12 at 350: "As to [Christ’s] Virgin Birth, we must say either that [Paul] knew nothing about it, or that he speaks in terms which exclude it." SOURCE
Additional Information:
In the sub-apostolic literature of the first half of the second century almost complete silence reigns concerning the Virgin Mary. The Didache, Clement of Rome, Pseudo Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, the Epistle to Diognetus (in its authentic part), the earliest apologists, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, the surviving fragments of the Apologia of Hermias, Quadratus, Aristo, Miltiades, none of these mention her at all. Ignatius of Antioch, in his authentic letters, refers to her a few times, and Aristides once, in the Armenian fragments of his Apology to Hadrian; these are the first rudiments of the symbol "apostolic" that begin to outline themselves in opposition to the docetic theories of Gnosticism. [source - The Virgin Mary: The Roman Catholic Marian Doctrine Contributors: Giovanni Miegge - author, et al. Publisher: Westminster Press Publication Date: 1955]
The first purpose of the title Theotokos (Deipara, Dei genetrix) is not to glorify the Virgin Mary but to express in a term clear, impressive and popular the real divine humanity of Christ. God in Christ is made man in such a precise and realistic sense that Mary can be called His mother. This expression is a paradox which pleased faith, in that it could adore the humiliation of God come down into the world in "the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7) to save men. It does not seem, moreover, that through the fourth century the title "Mother of God" had any wide diffusion except in Egypt. Alexandria had already been the spiritual forge of a mystic Christology radical in character in the preceding centuries, while in the discussions of the fourth and fifth centuries the school of Antioch and the Anatolian Church represented in opposition to it the standards of sober criticism and of rational theological temper. [source - The Virgin Mary: The Roman Catholic Marian Doctrine Contributors: Giovanni Miegge - author, et al. Publisher: Westminster Press Publication Date: 1955]
In Catholic dogma the Virgin Mary is a copy of Christ, in His life, His person and His work. The principle of analogy with Christ, expressed clearly in contemporary Mariology, has faithfully followed the elaboration of Marian doctrine through the centuries. Like the birth of Jesus, that of Mary was announced by angels and was an exceptional event in which the Holy Spirit had part. If Christ was conceived by a Virgin, Mary was conceived without sin. If Christ is like man in all things except sin, so Mary is in everything perfectly human except in sin. If Christ dwells in the fullness of divinity, then in Mary, through her Son, dwells the fullness of saving grace and supernatural life. Christ is the first-born of many brothers, but Mary is the first-born after Him, of the children born of Him, and, furthermore, she is their Mother, and to that extent she is no longer the mother of Jesus but His wife: she who carries in her fecund bosom all the generations of believers, she who after having given to the light the physical body of Christ, bears His mystic body in all the ages. Christ is the second Adam, Mary the second Eve. Christ is the fountain of living water which gushes forth into life eternal. Mary is the fountain of life, the spiritual mother of the new humanity. Christ is the true vine but Mary also receives this title (John of Damascus). She comes adorned with other titles that the New Testament reserved for Christ; like Christ she is the head of our salvation-kephalaion soterias (George of Nicomedia, James the Monk), saviour of the world ( Anselm, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus), propitiator--hilasterion--for our sins (Office of Lent), liberator from death, conqueror of death (Gregory of Neo-caesarea), reconciler of God with men (John of Damascus, Liturgy), mediatrix between God and men. [source - Cf. Benrath, Zur Geschichte der Marienverehrung, pp. 91 ff., which he borrows from the encyclopædic works of Marracci and Passaglia. ]
The importance of Mary's virginity as a symbol of purity developed at the time of Saint Augustine, when the church began to emphasize the difference between the body and spirit. Matter (the body) was directly connected to our sexuality and was equated with sin. Mary's virginity emphasized her lack of sexuality and therefore portrayed her as sinless. [source - www.uscatholic.org/2001/05/gya0105.htm]
Many early church Fathers disputed Mary's ever virginity, "No one again disputes that the clause "born of the Virgin Mary" formed part of the primitive redaction of the Creed, and the language of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, etc., is in thorough conformity with that of Irenaeus; further, though writers like Tertullian, Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary. " [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]
The Bible says, " For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23 AV), however, "St. Augustine in a famous passage (De nat. et gratis, 36) proclaims Mary's unique privilege of sinlessness" [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]
But in this, as in some other devotional aspects of early Christian beliefs, the most glowing language seems to be found in the East, and particularly in the Syrian writings of St. Ephraem. It is true that we cannot entirely trust the authenticity of many of the poems attributed to him; the tone, however, of some of the most unquestioned of Ephraem's compositions is still very remarkable. [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]
The Lateran Council of 469 under Pope Martin I declared: "if anyone does not confess in harmony with the holy Fathers that the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary is really and truly the mother of God, inasmuch as she in the last times and without semen by the Holy Spirit conceived God the Word himself specially and truthfully, who was born from God the Father before all ages, and she bore him uncorrupted, and after his birth her virginity remaining indissoluble, let him be condemned." The perpetual virginity of Mary thus became an official teaching of the church: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. In 1555, the Council of Trent confirmed this dogma in the Constitution of Pope Paul IV known as "Cum Quorundam." Here the pope warns against teaching that "the same blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the Mother of God and did not remain always in the integrity of virginity, i. e., before birth, in birth, and perpetually after birth." [source - Stephen Benko (1993) The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the pagan and Christian roots of Mariology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 203]
Mary was a virgin until the nativity, but not afterwards. Joseph was really the husband of Mary, but Jesus was conceived "before they came together;" and he (Joseph) "knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son." This is an intimation that she brought forth other sons. The opposition is clearly put by Luke. Jesus was the first-born, or eldest son of Mary, but "the only-begotten son" of God. Therefore, Mary had other children also. This is expressly stated by the Holy Scriptures.
The Scripture, to which you [Anglican Bishop Durnford of Chichester] appealed have, I think, pronounced against you. So do the older divines of the Roman church. Alvarez Polagius, papal legate and plenipotentiary, wrote that "James the Less" was made the first bishop of Jerusalem, because he was the "brother to the Lord Jesus after the flesh." This he had learned from the ancient fathers, as you may see if you will consult Cyril of Jerusalem, who flourished about 370 A. D.: "Afterwards Christ was seen by his brother James, the first bishop of the parish. You, who are the disciple of such a great bishop, may well believe him when he says he saw the risen Jesus stand before him. Or will you say that He appeared to His brother James because of James' love to Him? - Well, but after all He was seen of Paul, who was an enemy to Him."
"Pope Nicholas 1, in 858, issued a decree which is also embodied in the canon law, and is therefore part of the faith of the Roman church. It distinctly states and proves that Mary was married to Joseph and did not remain a virgin. The canon law also embodies passages from St. Augustine, to the same effect; from Pope Alexander III (in 1159); from Pope Innocent III (in 1243); from Pope Innocent IV (in 1243); from Ricardus (in 1280); while Hugo, Thomas Aquinas and Artesanus declare that it would have been a grievous sin if Mary had been betrothed or espoused and remained a virgin. The great "Abbas" Panormitanus, archbishop of Palermo, asserts the same. So does Angelus do Clavasio as late as 1480 A.D. [source - How holy was the Blessed Virgin Mary?... Mary and Jesus. Right Hon. Lord Robert Montagu, London, 1889]
It was Christ the wise men worshiped even when an infant and when Mary was in her prime and at her best. Let wise men continue in the good old path. For centuries the attempt has been made by the Romish church and all sympathizers with the "Harlot of the Tiber" to prove The Perpetual Virginity of the mother of our Lord. About the virginity of Mary up to the time of the birth of our Saviour there is no dispute. Matthew tells the story that is universally received and believed. He informs us that when Mary "was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily [privately]. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared unto him 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. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 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. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son and he called His name Jesus" (Matt. 1:18-25).
The evangelist that proclaims her virginity also declares her wifehood (Matt. 1:25), and that Mary was the mother of four boys, James and Joses, Simon and Judas (Matt. 13:55), and of girls as well (Mark 6:3), who lived and were known to the early church. [source - Is the Blessed Virgin Mary a perpetual virgin? ... Is it Mary or the Lady of the Jesuits? J. D. Fulton, London, 1889]
Essentially what we are trying to say is on the basis of available historical and scriptural evidence we cannot establish that Mary was an eternal virgin. It is probable and certainly possible but certainly not necessary. But then Roman Catholic Church being the "custodian of faith and revelation" has stipulated it. As in most of the later Marain doctrines, this doctrine of eternal virginity of Mary is derived from an ardent idolatrous approach to the figure of Mary and the lingering blasphemy of Gnosticism within the Chruch. It is not corroborated by the scripture nor are they ever referred to by any of the Apostles or anyone of the early Church Fathers before the second century. The important point is that such a position is not necessary for any Christian doctrine. [source - DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN DOCTRINES ON MARY - 4 , Prof. M. M. Ninan]
In fact, there are six different Marys in the New Testament, though Mary the mother of Jesus is properly 'Mariam' and the other five are usually 'Maria' or 'Mary.' Still, this is not a steadfast rule since Maria and Mariam can be sometimes declined in the same way. So we shall list these six Mary's: 1) Mariam, the mother of Jesus. 2) Mary, 'the other Mary.' She is the wife of Clopas (John 19:25), she is the mother of Jacob the Lesser and Joses (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40) 3) Mary, the sister of Martha. She anointed Jesus' feet (John 12:3). 4) Mary Magdalene (Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1, etc.). 5) Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12). 6) Mary, who was a helper of Paul (Rom. 16:6). Knowing the differences in the Marys allows us to state emphatically that Mary or Mariam the mother of Jesus had at least seven children: Jesus, Jacob, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, Judas, and at least two daughters. These names come from the following verses and elsewhere:
"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mariam? And His brothers Jacob, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And are not His sisters all with us?" (Matt. 13:55- 56 AST). "Is this One not the carpenter, the son of Mariam, and the brother of Jacob and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3 Anointed Standard Translation; AST).
Now it is because of these verses that the Catechism has tried to confuse the issue by mentioning "the other Mary," because we learn in Matthew 27:56 that this Mary also had two sons named Jacob and Joses. But these Jacob and Joses are different from that Jacob and Joses mentioned as Jesus' brothers in the above two verses. There are four different Jacobs or James in the New Testament: 1) Jacob, the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of the Apostle John. 2) Jacob, the son of Alphaeus. This is Jacob the Lesser, and the son of 'the other Mary,' and brother of Joses. 3) Jacob, the brother of Jesus and son of Mariam. 4) Jacob, the father of the Apostle Judas (not Iscariot). A detailed study of these four Jacobs throughout the New Testament verifies beyond any doubt that Mariam the mother of Jesus had a son named Jacob as did 'the other Mary.' They are not the same Jacob. The son of 'the other Mary' is the Lesser, and the son of Mariam and brother of Jesus is always identified as such. For example, [source - Mary's Other Children, by Pastor V.S. Herrell]
This word very specifically means "cousin," and this word was even used in the Greek Septuagint (Numbers 36:11). This Greek word is very important because many Catholics priests specifically tell their parishioners that the Greek language had no word for cousin and that this was the reason that the word brother had to be used. But this is nothing but shear ignorance and deception! In fact, ¢neyiÒj (anepsios) is not the only word for cousin; there are other words for specific types of cousin and other synonyms, etc. If Paul or Mark had meant that Jacob and Joses were simply kinsmen of Jesus, not necessarily cousins or brothers, then they could have used the Greek word suggen»j (sungenes) which means just a generic kinsman and is used by both Mark (6:4) and by Paul (Romans 9:3) as well as all throughout the New Testament. The story is the same in the Catholics' own Latin Vulgate. In Galatians 1:19, for example, the Latin word frater is used which specifically means brother. The word nepos, meaning cousin, could have been used, but it was not. Thus, there can be absolutely no doubt that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters who were the biological children of Mariam or Mary. This single doctrine is an excellent means of repudiating Catholics and the authority of the Catholic Church. If they cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Mary had at least seven children, then they cannot be intellectually honest enough to believe any truth. [source - Mary's Other Children, by Pastor V.S. Herrell]
This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the "sisters" and "brethren" spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar's "Early Days of Christianity," pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. [source - The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius., www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPN...-06-08.htm]
Synopsis: The earliest New Testament books make no reference to it, and are obviously written by men who had never heard of the doctrine. Of the Gospels two alone mention it. All four lay great stress upon the inspiration of Jesus by the Holy Ghost at his baptism-an inspiration which was unnecessary if Jesus was already "the anointed one," the Christ. Mark's doctrine. John's doctrine. The lateness of Matthew and Luke. Note on the date assigned to the birth of Jesus...... Further details of differences between Matthew and Luke. Luke's original Gospel did not contain the Virgin Birth story. Evidence of this and of the disbelief of many Christians in the Virgin Birth story, from the writings of the Fathers of the Church. The probable evolution of the story. The desire to show that the prophecies about a Messiah had been fulfilled. The doctrine was first heard of in the second century, but Marcion and the majority of second-century Christians did not believe in it. Justin Martyr and other "orthodox" Christians recognize the fact that all Christians do not believe in it. Many passages in the Gospels are incompatible with the Virgin Birth story. Jesus is regarded by his parents as mad. Joseph is referred to as his father. Mary is surprised that her son is at all different from other people. His brethren do not believe in him. The Virgin Birth stories rejected by many Christians as unsupported by evidence, both accounts having evidently been added to the Gospels long after these were first written. [SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922 ]
Synopsis: The Virgin Mary substituted for the pagan goddesses. Inherits the festivals and worship of the "mother of the gods." Rise of Mariolatry. Tho glorification of virginity. A re-action of pagan philosophers as well as of Christian theologians against sexual excesses. Reaction goes to absurd lengths. Original sin. Further development of the Virgin Birth doctrine. Mary's own immaculate birth. New doctrine accepted by Catholic Church. Mary's perpetual virginity. Buddhist parallel. Josoph's perpetual celibacy. The fate of a mildly skeptical monk. Legends about Mary's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Disputes about the Incarnation. How the doctrine was made obligatory, and enforced for hundreds of years..... Tho evidence of the Fathers of the Church that the Virgin Birth story was disbelieved by many Christians. Paul of Samosata. Heresies suppressed by the Catholic Church when it became the State religion of the Roman Empire. ... [SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922, Chapter VII - THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE-MODERN SKEPTICISM ]
Yes. Indeed, the worship of Mary has become at the present day, more than ever a sort of monomania in the Church of Rome, and is followed out with an utter disregard of common sense and decency and of ordinary prudence and discretion. The Rev. H. Seymour, MA, who spent some months in Rome, says:
'The worship of Mary has become predominant: it is absorbing all else. Her pictures, her images, her worship, her patronage, her intercession, her churches, her convents are all preferred to ought else. 'As the serpent rod of Aaron swallowed all the serpent rods of the Magicians, so the modern devotion for Mary has absorbed all the offerings, prayers and devotions for Jesus.' - [Pilgrimage to Rome p. 464]
Everything that our saint has written is, as it were, a summary of Catholic tradition on the subject that it treats; it is not an individual author, it is, so to speak, the church herself that speaks to us by the voice of her prophets, her apostles, her pontiffs, her saints, her fathers, her doctors of all nations and ages. No other book appears to be more worthy of recommendation in this respect than The Glories of Mary.' [1931 edition. Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn]
Thus are the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus fulfilled: "Certain senseless ones in their opinion about the Holy Ever-Virgin have striven and are striving to put Her in place of God" (St. Epiphanius, "Against the Antidikomarionites"). But that which is offered to the Virgin in senselessness, instead of praise of Her, turns out to be blasphemy; and the All-Immaculate One rejects the lie, being the Mother of Truth (John 14:6). ["Zeal Not According to Knowledge" by St. John Maximovitch, orthodox.truepath.com/art...wledge.htm]
More startling is the evidence of certain apocryphal writings, notably that of the so-called Gospel of St. James, or "Protevangelion." The earlier portion of this, which evinces a deep veneration for the purity and sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, and which affirms her virginity in partu et post partum, is generally considered to be a work of the second century. Similarly, certain interpolated passages found in the Sibylline Oracles, passages which probably date from the third century, show an equal preoccupation with the dominant role played by the Blessed Virgin in the work of redemption (see especially II, 311-12, and VIII, 357-479). The first of these passages apparently assigns to the intercession "of the Holy Virgin" the obtaining of the boon of seven days of eternity that men may find time for repentance (cf. the Fourth Book of Esdras, vii, 28-33). Further, it is quite likely that the mention of the Blessed Virgin in the intercessions of the diptychs of the liturgy goes back to the days before the Council of Nicaea, but we have no definite evidence upon the point, and the same must be said of any form of direct invocation, even for purposes of private devotion. [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]
It was natural then that in this atmosphere we should find a continually developing veneration for the sanctity and exalted privileges of Mary. In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we appreciate the exceptional position that she began, from an early period, to occupy in the thoughts of the faithful. Some of these frescoes, representing the prophecy of Isaias, are believed to date from the first half of the second century. Three others which represent the adoration of the Magi are a century later. There is also a remarkable but very much mutilated bas-relief, found at Carthage, which may be probably assigned to the time of Constantine. [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]
Devised Literary Structure of Matthew - An overview of the devised literary structure of Matthew
FEATURED LINKS:
FEATURED LINKS:
Jews for Judaism Related Articles
Jews for Judaism Related Articles
Mistranslations of Text - In a similar fashion to the mistranslation of the “Virgin Birth”, Christian translators have manipulated many parts of Scripture to “force” it to conform with their prejudicial notion that it is replete with references to Jesus if one were merely open-minded enough to see it.
Isaiah 53 and the “Suffering Servant.”
Christian Proof-Texting - RABBI BENTZION KRAVITZ
Jesus Was Not Born of a Virgin by Jason Kerrigan Was Jesus born of a virgin? Why do the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict one another? Is there historical evidence that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke were added after the original Gospels were written? Why did the early Jewish Christians reject the virgin birth narrative and say that Jesus was born of natural union between a man and a woman? There is a record indicating that Jesus' own relatives described him as the son of Joseph's brother, according to Levirate marriage. Is it reliable? Why did early Christians, like Clement of Alexandria, say that Luke wrote the adoptionist text Jason and Papiscus? Is the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 accurately applied to Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:23? These issues and more are addressed in this small book, bringing the reader to the undeniable conclusion that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
Was Jesus Born of a Virgin or Not?
Was There Really a Virgin Birth in the Bible? by Joel M. Hoffman
Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean “Virgin”? by Tovia Singer
Gospel of James From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Proto-Gospel of James)
Infancy Gospel of James - Early Christian Writings
ETYMOLOGY and BIBLICAL USAGE of 'ALMAH - JSTOR digital library for scholars, researchers, and students
ETYMOLOGY and BIBLICAL USAGE of 'ALMAH - JSTOR digital library for scholars, researchers, and students
[VIDEO] VIRGIN BIRTH 1/2 (Reply 2 one for Israel maoz messianic jews for jesus jewish voice askdrbrown МЕБИ)
[VIDEO] VIRGIN BIRTH 1/2 (Reply 2 one for Israel maoz messianic jews for jesus jewish voice askdrbrown МЕБИ)
[VIDEO] VIRGIN BIRTH 2/2 (Reply 2 one for Israel maoz messianic jews for jesus jewish voice askdrbrown МЕБИ)
[VIDEO] VIRGIN BIRTH 2/2 (Reply 2 one for Israel maoz messianic jews for jesus jewish voice askdrbrown МЕБИ)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse