Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

[Goat]

I never once said that Isaiah says virgin. What I did say is that it most certainly does not mean virgin. Matthew says it does which is incorrect. Matthew tried to make Isaiah mean virgin. Jesus birth is said to be that of a virgin. This has nothing to support it in the Hebrew bible.

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Several things.. in the older times, the term 'parthenos' was not necessarily virgin. For example, Dinah, in Genesis 3.4, was referred to as "Parthnos" in the Septuagint , even after she got raped. There is also the following references in ancient Greek literature where the term 'Parthenos' refers to a non virgin.

Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.

Pindar, Pythian 3.34
and
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).

So, well, the meaning changed over the years.

Thank you for the clarification. That makes Mattityahu's use of that term even more common. So, there is no deception, just an object lesson.

Well.. the point is that the meaning of the term changed.. and the understanding of the term parthenos when the Septuagint was translated verses when Matthew used it, the meaning changed.

I would say that it wasn't so much deception as a misunderstanding.

[The Tongue]

I never once said that Isaiah says virgin. What I did say is that it most certainly does not mean virgin. Matthew says it does which is incorrect. Matthew tried to make Isaiah mean virgin. Jesus birth is said to be that of a virgin. This has nothing to support it in the Hebrew bible.

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Several things.. in the older times, the term 'parthenos' was not necessarily virgin. For example, Dinah, in Genesis 3.4, was referred to as "Parthnos" in the Septuagint , even after she got raped. There is also the following references in ancient Greek literature where the term 'Parthenos' refers to a non virgin.

Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.

Pindar, Pythian 3.34
and
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).

So, well, the meaning changed over the years.

Thank you for the clarification. That makes Mattityahu's use of that term even more common. So, there is no deception, just an object lesson.

Well.. the point is that the meaning of the term changed.. and the understanding of the term parthenos when the Septuagint was translated verses when Matthew used it, the meaning changed.

I would say that it wasn't so much deception as a misunderstanding.

No matey, The Greek did not have a specific term for virgin, "Parthenos" meant an unmarried woman regardless of her sexual status.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself, as did the Hebrew term "Almah," which was translated correctly by Matthew, and intentionally misinterpreted by Jerome, who was one of those professed christians who had abandoned the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

So let me here repeat.

The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an Almah an unmarried female is with child and will bear a son, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication. A more accurate rendering of the Greek parthenos is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a parthenos, Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, was a widow of seven years, and is referred to as a parthenos for seven years, but she was in no way, a virgin.

The Bible is seen to be correct once we remove the yeast that has been added to the unleavened bread of God, which yeast was added by the corrupt authorities of the universal church of Constantine. "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees."

[Nickman]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

I didn't notice this until now. You keep admitting that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled. Does that mean you believe Isaiah predicted the future and was successful?

No, I am just going by what the bible says. Whether or not said prediction actually happened as written, I cannot confirm or deny. No one can.

[Goat]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

I didn't notice this until now. You keep admitting that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled. Does that mean you believe Isaiah predicted the future and was successful?

Well, he CLAIMED to have predicted the future and it was successful.. but his claim came after the fact. ... it's like 'See, look what I predicted, it came true'.

[The Tongue]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

[Nickman wrote]......The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture.

When are you ever going to get it through that godless brain of yours, that the Greek word, Parthenos refers to any woman who is unmarried and does not have a legitimate sexual partner, exactly as does the Hebrew term used by Isaiah in 7: 14; but because the Greek did not have a specific term for virgin as does the Hebrew, which word is Bethulah, in translating the Hebrew Isaiah 7: 14; the only word suitable in the Greek language to convey the same meaning as the Hebrew Almah, the meaning of which is given in Youngs Analytical Concordance as; (Concealment.Unmarried Female) was the Greek Parthenos, which conveys the meaning of a person, male or female who is unmarried or does not have a legitimate sexual partner.

Matthew's message, was that the child that was born to the unmarried Mary would be called God is with us, and if you do not believe that Jesus has been called that for over two thousand years, then that doesnt say too much about your powers of observation.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.

They try to justify their rejection of the truth of God's word by inventing the unbiblical yarn of some supposed god who entered the womb of some woman who remained a virgin after the act by which she had conceived the child in her womb. But you will find no biblical evidence to support their false invention.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent "IN THE NAME OF THE LORD", with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, and the heavenly voice was heard to say, You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father, or THIS DAY I have begotten thee, See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23; before it was changed by those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and refuse to acknowledge that he was born the physical birth as all men are.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

Matthew merely translates the words of Isaiah 7: 14, A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, and he shall be called (God is with us) and Luke simply reveals that the young 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin three months before she was found to be with child, which was born according to the working of the Holy Spirit.

Luke reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin (3 MONTHS) before she was found to be pregnant, due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, gives the meaning of the Hebrew word Almah, which is used in Isaiah 7: 14; as, (Concealment: Unmarried woman.) when Mary, the obedient handmaid to her indwelling spirit, a Parthenos who had told the angel three months earlier that she was at that time had never known a man sexually, thereby implying that she was still a virgin, after being told of Elizabeths pregnancy, she then went from her home town of Nazareth to a small town near Jerusalem to join with many other members of the family of Elizabeth the aged sister of Anna the mother of Mary, who is the niece to Elizabeth, who were of the daughters of Levi, where she must have met for the first time and was spiritually attracted to the biological father of Jesus, who had come from Cyprus.

The act of obedience from which the child of Gods promise was conceived in the womb of the Almah, unmarried woman, was concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.

Until Jerome deliberately misinterpreted the word Parthenos to substantiate the lie of the universal church of Constantine, no reader of the original Greek gospel of Matthew would have believed that he was referring to a virgin, but to a woman like the "parthenos" Hanna=Anna, who had been a widow for seven years, a woman who did not have a legitimate sexual partner.

[Nickman]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

[Nickman wrote]......The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture.

When are you ever going to get it through that godless brain of yours, that the Greek word, Parthenos refers to any woman who is unmarried and does not have a legitimate sexual partner, exactly as does the Hebrew term used by Isaiah in 7: 14; but because the Greek did not have a specific term for virgin as does the Hebrew, which word is Bethulah, in translating the Hebrew Isaiah 7: 14; the only word suitable in the Greek language to convey the same meaning as the Hebrew Almah, the meaning of which is given in Youngs Analytical Concordance as; (Concealment.Unmarried Female) was the Greek Parthenos, which conveys the meaning of a person, male or female who is unmarried or does not have a legitimate sexual partner.

Matthew's message, was that the child that was born to the unmarried Mary would be called God is with us, and if you do not believe that Jesus has been called that for over two thousand years, then that doesnt say too much about your powers of observation.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.

They try to justify their rejection of the truth of God's word by inventing the unbiblical yarn of some supposed god who entered the womb of some woman who remained a virgin after the act by which she had conceived the child in her womb. But you will find no biblical evidence to support their false invention.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent "IN THE NAME OF THE LORD", with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, and the heavenly voice was heard to say, You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father, or THIS DAY I have begotten thee, See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23; before it was changed by those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and refuse to acknowledge that he was born the physical birth as all men are.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

Matthew merely translates the words of Isaiah 7: 14, A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, and he shall be called (God is with us) and Luke simply reveals that the young 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin three months before she was found to be with child, which was born according to the working of the Holy Spirit.

Luke reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin (3 MONTHS) before she was found to be pregnant, due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, gives the meaning of the Hebrew word Almah, which is used in Isaiah 7: 14; as, (Concealment: Unmarried woman.) when Mary, the obedient handmaid to her indwelling spirit, a Parthenos who had told the angel three months earlier that she was at that time had never known a man sexually, thereby implying that she was still a virgin, after being told of Elizabeths pregnancy, she then went from her home town of Nazareth to a small town near Jerusalem to join with many other members of the family of Elizabeth the aged sister of Anna the mother of Mary, who is the niece to Elizabeth, who were of the daughters of Levi, where she must have met for the first time and was spiritually attracted to the biological father of Jesus, who had come from Cyprus.

The act of obedience from which the child of Gods promise was conceived in the womb of the Almah, unmarried woman, was concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.

Until Jerome deliberately misinterpreted the word Parthenos to substantiate the lie of the universal church of Constantine, no reader of the original Greek gospel of Matthew would have believed that he was referring to a virgin, but to a woman like the "parthenos" Hanna=Anna, who had been a widow for seven years, a woman who did not have a legitimate sexual partner.

I understand that Isaiah is not speaking of a virgin. Matthew is though. The reason he is can be found in the story itself. The fact that the HS conceived in her a child before sexual relations with the man she was betrothed to, Joseph.

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel[g] (which means God with us).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus

Matthew is explicit on the intention of a virgin birth. Or if we get technical maybe she had sex prior to her marriage to Joseph with someone else. Regardless of what you say the conception of Jesus is not from a human being but from god, virgin or not. Either way you still have the same problem, a woman who did not have sex ended up pregnant. Which makes abstinence 99.9% effective.

To add, it doesn't change the fact that it does not match Isaiah 7:14 because Isaiah chapter 8 is the fulfillment of said passage. Not Matthew 1:18-25

[The Tongue]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

I have seen you make this point before and it is totally illogical. There is nothing in the Tanakh that says HaMashiach can not be born of a virgin. In order for something to be disqualifed, it must violate an existing rule. Please, show me where that is the case. Even orthodox jews do not make that argument. They simply reject the possibility outright. That is at least a logical response.

The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture. No one else mentions a virgin birth except for Matthew and Luke. We know that Matthew and Luke are not originals and are made from Mark and a possible Q. We also know that Luke borrowed extensively from Matthew. So here we have Mark written first, of all the gospels, and he does not mention a virgin birth. Then Matthew emerges using Mark as a template and with an erroneous assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Later Luke uses Matthew for material and adds even more but never mentions any fulfillment of Isaiah. John never mentions a virgin birth either. The story hangs on two texts out of the entire NT. One which says it fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which was already fulfilled and another that doesn't mention any type of fulfillment at all.

[Nickman wrote]......The virgin birth of Jesus comes from Matthew and his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Luke was written later and the angel never mentions a fulfillment of any OT scripture.

When are you ever going to get it through that godless brain of yours, that the Greek word, Parthenos refers to any woman who is unmarried and does not have a legitimate sexual partner, exactly as does the Hebrew term used by Isaiah in 7: 14; but because the Greek did not have a specific term for virgin as does the Hebrew, which word is Bethulah, in translating the Hebrew Isaiah 7: 14; the only word suitable in the Greek language to convey the same meaning as the Hebrew Almah, the meaning of which is given in Youngs Analytical Concordance as; (Concealment.Unmarried Female) was the Greek Parthenos, which conveys the meaning of a person, male or female who is unmarried or does not have a legitimate sexual partner.

Matthew's message, was that the child that was born to the unmarried Mary would be called God is with us, and if you do not believe that Jesus has been called that for over two thousand years, then that doesnt say too much about your powers of observation.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.

They try to justify their rejection of the truth of God's word by inventing the unbiblical yarn of some supposed god who entered the womb of some woman who remained a virgin after the act by which she had conceived the child in her womb. But you will find no biblical evidence to support their false invention.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent "IN THE NAME OF THE LORD", with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, and the heavenly voice was heard to say, You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father, or THIS DAY I have begotten thee, See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23; before it was changed by those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and refuse to acknowledge that he was born the physical birth as all men are.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

Matthew merely translates the words of Isaiah 7: 14, A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, and he shall be called (God is with us) and Luke simply reveals that the young 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin three months before she was found to be with child, which was born according to the working of the Holy Spirit.

Luke reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin (3 MONTHS) before she was found to be pregnant, due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, gives the meaning of the Hebrew word Almah, which is used in Isaiah 7: 14; as, (Concealment: Unmarried woman.) when Mary, the obedient handmaid to her indwelling spirit, a Parthenos who had told the angel three months earlier that she was at that time had never known a man sexually, thereby implying that she was still a virgin, after being told of Elizabeths pregnancy, she then went from her home town of Nazareth to a small town near Jerusalem to join with many other members of the family of Elizabeth the aged sister of Anna the mother of Mary, who is the niece to Elizabeth, who were of the daughters of Levi, where she must have met for the first time and was spiritually attracted to the biological father of Jesus, who had come from Cyprus.

The act of obedience from which the child of Gods promise was conceived in the womb of the Almah, unmarried woman, was concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.

Until Jerome deliberately misinterpreted the word Parthenos to substantiate the lie of the universal church of Constantine, no reader of the original Greek gospel of Matthew would have believed that he was referring to a virgin, but to a woman like the "parthenos" Hanna=Anna, who had been a widow for seven years, a woman who did not have a legitimate sexual partner.

I understand that Isaiah is not speaking of a virgin. Matthew is though. The reason he is can be found in the story itself. The fact that the HS conceived in her a child before sexual relations with the man she was betrothed to, Joseph.

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel[g] (which means God with us).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus

Matthew is explicit on the intention of a virgin birth. Or if we get technical maybe she had sex prior to her marriage to Joseph with someone else. Regardless of what you say the conception of Jesus is not from a human being but from god, virgin or not. Either way you still have the same problem, a woman who did not have sex ended up pregnant. Which makes abstinence 99.9% effective.

To add, it doesn't change the fact that it does not match Isaiah 7:14 because Isaiah chapter 8 is the fulfillment of said passage. Not Matthew 1:18-25

Of course Mary had sex with the biological father of Jesus, who was her half brother "Joseph the son of Heli," who is about 40 generations from Nathan the priest, who is the step-son of King David, before she married Joseph the son of Jacob who is about 24 generations from Solomon the step-brother to Solomon.

So let me here repeat a previous post, which you have obviously not yet read.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna. Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to the elite of the house of Israel.

Hanna/Anna, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli), A Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was an adopted son of David, and who is thought by some, to be the twin brother of Herods young Jewish wife Cleopatra, a Macedonian Jewess.

Heli, was a descendant of Nathan the priest, who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi through his second wife, who was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite, one of the two fathers-in-law of Moses who are mentioned in the Old Testament.

Numbers 12: 1-2, reveals that Moses took a second wife, which means he had two fathers-in-law.

Exodus 3: 1; One day while Moses was taking care of the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro the priest of Midian, etc,-----Judges 1: 16; The descendants of Moses father-in-law, the Kenite, went on with the people of JUDAH from Jericho.-----Judges 4: 11; Heber the Kenite, had moved away from the other Kenites, who were the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses.

Caleb was the son of Hobabs daughter, Jephunneh the Kenizzite=Kenite, before she was taken to wife by Moses, which was a cunning ploy by Moses to keep the descendants of Hobab with them, as they knew the desert like the back of their hand. The biological father of Calab, the adopted son of Moses, was of the tribe of Judah, but that's another story.
.
Heli and his descendants were legal heirs to the throne of David, by the adoption of their ancestor Nathan the Levite, to King David.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b). In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.

The fact that Nathan was not a biological son of David is borne out in Zechariah 12: 12; where it is written: And the land shall mourn, every family apart, the house of the family =sons of David apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Nathan apart and their wives apart, etc."

Nathan the Levite was not the biological son of David, but by his adoption to David, he and his descendants had a legitimate claim to the throne of David.

Jesus the grandson of Alexander Helious (HELI) was made High priest and King, and no High priest can come from any line of the sons of Israel, but through LEVI. And Jesus who was made King and high priest in the order of Melchezedic, and who was from the tribe of Judah (The king tribe) through Nathan the Levite (The priestly tribe), was not from the genetic line of Aaron, but from the line of Moses, of who it is said by the Lord in Exodus 7: That he would be as God on earth to his brother Aaron.

Heli, who was seen as a threat to the throne of Herod, died in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, had previously sired a son, who we know by the name Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, and Heli had also sired the child Mary, to Hanna the daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III.

Yehoshua, the great grandfather of Jesus is said to have died 3 years before Mary the daughter of Hanna and Heli was born. If it was his death that ended his period as high priest in Jerusalem in the year of 23 BC, this would mean that Mary was born in 20 BC, and was 7 years old when her father Heli died in 13 BC, and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, who was born in 6 BC. This would make Mary who married Cleophas/Alpheaus, the father of James the younger of Marys three biological sons, about 47 years old when Jesus, the first of her three biological sons was crucified.

Joseph the son of Jacob, is a descendant of "Jehoiachin," and we read in Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And this Joseph who had no sexual relations with Mary until after the first of her three biological sons was born, is some "24 generations" from Solomon the biological son of David.

While Joseph the son of Heli, the biological father of Jesus, who has a legitmate claim to the throne of King David, is about "40 generations from Nathan the Levite," who is the adopted son of King David and step brother to Solomon.

So people such as Nickman and others, who claim that the genealogy in Matthew, which is that of the step father of Jesus, is contradictory to the genealogy in Luke, which is that of Jesus the biological son of Joseph the son of Heli, a descendant of Nathan, are shown to be totally ignorant to the truths as revealed in the Holy scriptures.

[Nickman]

What evidence do you have that Mary slept with Joseph Bar Heli? There is no such thing in the bible. Why didnt the author write this down?

[The Tongue]

What evidence do you have that Mary slept with Joseph Bar Heli? There is no such thing in the bible. Why didnt the author write this down?

You really don't know your bible do you? Luke 3: 23; Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, don't worry too much about the added interpolation in brackets, (As was supposed) This Joseph the son of Alexander Helios (Heli) is about 40 generations from Nathan the adopted son of King David and should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob who is about the 24th descendant of Solomon and who had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to Jesus the biological son of her half brother Joseph the son of Heli.

[Nickman]

What evidence do you have that Mary slept with Joseph Bar Heli? There is no such thing in the bible. Why didnt the author write this down?

You really don't know your bible do you? Luke 3: 23; Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, don't worry too much about the added interpolation in brackets, (As was supposed) This Joseph the son of Alexander Helios (Heli) is about 40 generations from Nathan the adopted son of King David and should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob who is about the 24th descendant of Solomon and who had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to Jesus the biological son of her half brother Joseph the son of Heli.

As was supposed though. You will have to show that Luke had his ducks in a row. Did Luke speak ofthe same Joseph as Matthew? Why not worry about the brackets though? because it makes your case look better? The as was supposed can easily be admission of a virgin birth.