Did the Virgin Birth truly occur?

Is there - really - a real prophecy concerning a Virgin Birth in the Jewish Bible, or the Tanach?

Are there great discrepancies within the two Virgin Birth Narratives?

An honest look by a Jewish believing man

A Drawing of Bethlehem from the 1800's

THE FAMOUS PROPHECY BY MICAH

                                                      THE PROPHET

  But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.  - Micah 5:2

"

"

Bethlehem in Modern Days

In this article I will be answering all of the questions I put in the title above.

Let me first say this, this document is quite extensive, but I ask that you undersatnd why, because the belief in the virgin birth is very old.

It is so old in fact, that we find it in two gospels. By this fact, we see that is was believed upon not soon after Yoshua was murdered, rose again and then ascended to the right hand of the God of Israel, Who he serves and obeys. So with that being said, in order for me to conquer such a belief I had better give full detail of my findings to prove my case.

In many cases, because traditions are so old, many people assume they are true. And, to go along with this, let me say this, in all fields, even in opposing points of view, you can always find a scholar or an apologist for each side, no

matter how many sides there are. For this cause, I say this to all people, "Regarding those who have earned degrees from schools or universities, I do not esteem any higher than the common reader or student, because he who earns a degree in something has simply only flushed their mind with the doctrinization of their professors and what was handed down to them, and anything else they might have added to that. So with an open mind to new learning, let's dig for some knowledge, for the sake of truth and not the knowledge from some agenda based on some denomination or institution, or because of some traditional belief.

In absolute truth my dear friends, when I first saw the truth opposing the two virgin birth narratives, after I actually read all of the Judaic prophecies found only in the Tanach concerning the moshiach and how he must come, I felt like tearing my clothes in half. For I grew up being taught to believe in the virgin birth and that it was one of the major tenets of the so-called 'historic christian faith.' In all honesty it is historic, as in to say it is old, but with this paper you will see why I turned my back on this belief and concider it absolute folly and entirely fabricated by foolish and ignorant men.

My personal 'light bulb' moment of the real truth was kindly given to me by the God of Israel Himself or through His holy angel concerning His only begotten son. This was done in the summer or fall of 2007. Then just two weeks ago during the shabath on 12/13/2008 He or His angel revealed unto me the true birth place of Yoshua and then backed it up in the Gospel of John, who's gospel is the only surviving eyewitness account of Yoshua's life.

This information that He gave me not only destroyed this famous belief - a belief that I had believed in since my childhood, but it added to the multiple of errors I had already found in the Gospels [click here to see them]. But, out of all of the errors found in the Gospels that do destroy the notion that the writings of the Gospels are "inerrant," this particular error really shattered that notion. Yes, my dear friends, I will prove to you that many of the  things  found in the  first  three gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - are purely fabrications and lies from long ago.  In all truth my dear friends, if you read one of my other articles that I published on this website, that being: "Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal, or just a Regular Meal?" you can see that Jesus' last supper was not the Passover meal according to the Gospel of John; when, in fact, the other three gospels claim it was the Passover meal. John, however, is indeed the only eyewitness to the life and words of Yoshua [Jesus] out of the four gospels writers. Whereas as 'Matthew,' 'Mark' and 'Luke' are authors that came to believe in Jesus or Yoshua years after Jesus' ascension to heaven. Moreover, they never knew the man, nor met him personally. Well, my point in saying this to you is this: this article not only proves that Yoshua [Jesus] did not live to see the Passover sacrifice, but that the so-called Gospel of "Matthew" was NOT even written by Matthew the apostle, one on the twelve apostles of the moshiach. This is because whoever this author is, he does not know Judaic law, for he wrote that Jesus broke leavened bread on the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He did this by using the Greek word "artos" instead of "azumos [meaning matzah or unleavened bread.]" This points to the fact that not only was this "Matthew" NOT one of the twelve, but that he may not even have been Jewish at all, because of his lack of understanding of Judaic law. For if he were Jewish, especially a disciple of the greatest prophet to have ever walked this earth, he would have picked up on the error of his penmanship. Another thing I would like to point out is the fact that when Mathhew is called by Yoshua to follow him, according to the gospel of 'Matthew,' he does not write as if he is talking about himself. Rather, the authir is clearly talking about someone else, for he writes,

"And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew,

sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And

he arose, and followed him [Matt 9:9]."

He does not say, "I was sitting at my both and lo - Yoshua called out to me to follow him."

In this document, I will be pointing out many errors within the three gospels, but especially Matthew and Luke where the only two references exist that say Jesus was born from a virgin girl and that he was born in Bethlehem vs somewhere else, what John does. I will be pointing out the many errors and discrepancies within the three gospels in order to discredit them as being reliable sources of the man of history; much the same way a lawyer would disregard a false witness that many people think is telling the truth. Else how would anyone even believe me if I were simply scream out, "Jesus was not born from a virgin, nor was he born in Bethlehem," when two out of the four gospels say these things.  My motives for doing this article or paper are not because I hate the Gospels or Christianity, nor because I am a "fault-finder," nor because I want to discredit anything, but for the simple fact of prudency, and for the sake of truth, so that we may clearly know who the real man of history was named Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem [and not Yahshua as pagans say, for his name is Joshua in English].

So let's get started with this great "unraveling" of the JEWISH scriptures, of real history and of the only surviving eyewitnessed account of Yoshua, the Gospel of John.

Now when talking to the proponents of the virgin birth, they like to point out two particular passages from the Jewish Tanach or the Jewish Bible, they are from Isaiah 7 and Genesis 3. They reference Isaiah 7, because the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only gospels that reference the virgin birth though Matthew is the only one that quotes a passage from Isaiah 7 as its proof that the virgin birth was predicted. The only reason these proponents quote from Isaiah 7 and Genesis 3 is because they are like a horse that is lead by a carrot, not because these passages have any validity to the moshiach's birth [regarding Isa 7] or regarding to some virgin birth [both Matt and Luke] prophecy. So, if you were to read Isaiah 7, this whole chapter has nothing to do with the Jewish moshiach. Rather, this chapter is dealing with the heart of a certain king of Judah, being Ahaz.. Regarding whether or not he is going to trust in HaShem, the God of Israel, or if he is going to lean on man for his help. In this chapter, King Ahaz is quite literally worried about two kings, "Rezin" - the King of Aram [Syria], and - "Pekah" - the King of Israel. This is because they joined forces in order to torment the Kingdom of Judah and her king, King Ahaz. At the time of this terror, HaShem tells the mighty prophet Isaiah to go and tell Ahaz a message not to worry, but to lean on and trust in HaShem for his aid. On top of this, Isaiah tells him to ask for a sign to prove that Isaiah was in fact sent from HaShem to give Ahaz this message. Ahaz, however, does not want to test HaShem, so HaShem gives him a sign in order to prove that HaShem will be with him [Ahaz] and will guard his kingdom from these two foreign kingdoms. The sign is this: before a particular child shall know how to choose the right over the wrong, the two kings of these two foreign kingdoms he is concerned about shall be dead. So the sign is the boy's knowledge (and his age), not his birth in and of itself, nor simply the prediction that the boy's mother would name him, "Emanuel."

So with that being said, it is clear that this "child" had to be born before these two foreign kings died, thus this passage has nothing to do with the holy moshiach that was to be born some 700 plus years later, my dear friends. For these two kings died about 4 years apart - around 738 BCE. A far cry from the birth of Jesus. THUS - Isaiah 7 is  not referring to the messiah in any form and if it does not talk about him, this "short-term" prophecy has nothing to do with the birth of the messiah, but someone else. I say, "short-term," because from the very moment that Isaiah said this particular "sign" and prophecy, it was fulfilled or it all came to pass within an 8 year period, instead of 700 plus years later when the moshiach was actually born!!!!

Before I forget, which is the most important point I need to make, "Why does Matthew even bother even quoting from Isaiah 7? What is so special about it that they should reference it even though it has nothing to do with the Jewish moshiach?" Well, first of all you will read the word, 'Emanuel' or 'Immanuel,' this name means "El is with us;" Or, "'God' is with us." In other words "The God of Israel is with us." Now, in full reality regarding this verse, with its true interpretation taken from the context of the chapter, this word, "Emanuel," does not mean that the God of Israel will come down from the heavens and literally walk with us, as those that believe in the virgin birth falsely assume. For these same people think that Jesus is the second person of some false Trinity God, (where, in fact, Judaism has never had any such god.) No, remember what I just said, this chapter is dealing with the Kingdom of Judah and her king, King Ahaz. This name, therefore, truly means this in its full interpretation: "The God of Abraham or of heaven is on the side of the Kingdom of Judah and not on the side of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel."

Now to comment about Genesis 3 really quickly, when HaShem said what He did to Eve, keep in mind that not a single soul had been born to Eve yet. I say this because all of humanity would come through this single woman, but obviously this cannot occur by herself -without the seed of Adam. So when you read, "I will put enmity between your [the serpent's] seed and her seed," a person should not jump to the conclusion that this is talking about a miraculous virgin birth. The true interpretation of these words in Genesis 3 are understood through the personal promises and prophecies given to 6 men whom HaShem personally promised that the moshiach would be born from their actual seed. If then this is the case, which it is, Genesis 3 has nothing to do with a miraculous virgin birth, but a regular birth. So to say it again, not a single birth had come by Eve yet when this prediction was made.

So, before the Trinity doctrine came into existence around 110 c.e. through non-Jews living in modern day Turkey [like "Ignatius of Ephesians"], some believers in Jesus who knew very little or nothing at all of the tenents of Judaism viewed "Emanuel" in the manner I described - a sign for help, but in a way that was very wrong for its overall interpretation. Most believers in Jesus before 110 CE never viewed Jesus as 'God in the flesh.' These believers were obviously the 11 apostles, Stephen and even Paul - to his credit, but also the Ebonites and the Nazarenes [who are considered by certain scholars to be the first believers] and others. Nonetheless, these believers that knew very little of the tenents of Judaism greatly errored when they did not apply "Emanuel" to its correct context, being the ancient kingdom of Judah. Instead they applyied it to Yoshua himself in their zeal, excitement and ignoance. They did this because he was a proven prophet in deed and in word. However, every prophet that Yehowah sent to His people clear displayed that the God of Israel was with them or speaking to them through the prophet. However, because of an ill-translation from the Hebrew language into the Greek language the people saw the word "virgin" there and assumed it was talking about Jesus, since no prophet was ever born from a virgin girl. This Greek translaation is the Septuagint. So without even reading the chapter and running with a single mis-ranslated verse they believed that Jesus bron from a virgin, even though the prophets prophecied otherwise. Therefore, though these early non-Jewish did not see Jesus as the "God of Israel in the flesh," they errored by assuming that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

Now here is something else you need to know that you will not get from Trinitarian churches: As I just said, the original disciples, including the heretic Paul, never viewed Yoshua ben Yosef or Jesus as "God in the flesh." No, they viewed Yoshua as being a totally separate and independent spirit from the Only Eternal and Holy Spirit - the God of Israel Whose name is Yehowah. In truth they judged Yoshua as the one and only literal son, child or boy that the God of Israel had and that this actual son or prince became incarnate, not that Yoshua was the God of Israel Himself incarnate.

This word, "virgin" exists in Isaiah 7:14 in the King James Version and many other English versions and many other foreign languages, but this is due to what the gospel of Matthew says which is based from the Septuagint, not because what the actual Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 says. And, because of what Matthew says, those who do not know what the prophets predicted foolishly go along with it and also apply it to the Gospel of Luke, even though Luke does not mention any sort of prophetic reference. In other words, the non-Jewish translators of our current age are actually going backwards in time for their interpretations instead of coming from the past to the present or going forward in time and letting Isaiah come first then the gospels. For if the so-called 'Matthew' had done this he would not have "cut and pasted" Isaiah 7:14 into his narrative and so rewrite history concerning the real man of history named Yoshua ben Yosef whom he never knew, nor meet. In fact, if Matthew had any clue to what this chapter is referring to or if Matthew, Luke and these particular early believers would have known the true tenents of Judaism concerning the birth of the JEWISH moshiach they would have discarded the false "hand-me-down" oral heritage that was being circulated concerning this holy Jewish man named Yoshua or Joshua. For the moshiach must be conceived a natural way. This is exactly what you get, however, when authors or believers are ignorant of the tenets, promises and prophecies of Judaism, the faith of all the ancestors of Israel, even to Adam himself. A faith that the true moshiach must always practice and promote and not some other faith. Nor is he to introduce some new belief system, which Paul,  the original Catholics and Martin Luther did in his name, for that would disqualify him in being the true messiah, for he must walk in the footsteps of all the other prophets of Judaism and came before him or who might have been along side of him, like John the Baptist.

To side track for a brief moment, Judaism has never taught that their coming moshiach is the God of Israel, but that he is a totally separate spirit and person from the God of Israel and that he too must obey the God of Israel. The moshiach in Judaism and the moshiach that the 11 apostles presented is not eternal, nor divine, but that he is a made being. In fact, biblical Judaism and the apostles explain that he was the very first of all that has come into existence, whereas the God of Israel has always existed, for He never had a beginning. Thus saying, because the son is the very first of all that has come into being he was there at the foundation of the world. If you look in Job 38 even the angels were there at the very beginning when the foundation of the earth was laid, even though Genesis 1, nor 2, does not mention anything about them. The moshiach however proceeded the angles, because - as I just said - he is the very first of all that has come into existence. For here is what John says in Revelation 3:14:

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith

the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"

Here is what Proverbs 8:22-23

Yehowah made me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.

I was brought forth before the accounting of time, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Fools say this is talking about wisdom, with that I say, was Yehowah so ignorant that He had to make widom for Himself? They hush after that question.

And even though we don't like Paul at HeShallGovern, I will quote him in order to show you that he too taught the moshiach is a made being and a mere servant of HaShem. Taken from Col 2

And here is what Paul says in 1 Col 15:27-28

For He [Yehowah] hath put all things under his [Jesus]feet. But when He [Yehowah] saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that He is excluded, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto Him [Yehowah] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

and

Col 1:15-17,

"Whose in the likeness of the invisible God [which would be the case if he were a son. See: Daniel 7:9 - HaShem looks like a man], the firstborn of every creature or being:... And he came before all things." Not that it says, "For he always was." And we humans are in their image and likeness, see Daniel 7:9 & 7:13-14.

To go along with what I said I would like to give you some references that clearly demonstrate that the moshiach is not the God of Israel in the flesh. And, that he is a totally separate person who also must be held accountable by the God of Israel to follow up by other writers, other than Paul.

Here are some blatant verses in the Jewish Tanach is prove what I mean:

1. "Yehowah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me

    [Moses]; unto him ye shall hearken [Deut 18:15]."

  As you can see Yehowah and the prophet are separate individuals. In fact, by this verse alone, without

   using other verses in the holy Tanach it would seem that the moshiach does not even exist.

2. "Yet it pleased Yehowah to bruise him.... My righteous servant justify many [Isa 53:10-11]."

  It is very clear that the one Yehowah will bruise is not Himself in some different form. In fact, this verse

   boldly claims that the messiah is the very servant of Yehowah, not that he is Yehowah. Thus making them

   separate individuals and making the 'servant' accountable to the God of Israel.

3. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came

    to the Ancient of days... [Dan 7:13]."

    Here its very clear that they are separate individuals. Keep in mind in Judaism, the faith of the real

    moshiach only the Ancient of Days is the God of Israel and He alone, we [at HeShallGovern] teach a

    pure monotheism, not a unified-trinity monotheism as the pagan, mainstream, so-called - "Christians" claim.

4. The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner. This is Yehowah's doing;

   it [is] marvelous in our eyes [Ps 118:22-23]."

    Again, it is clear that Yehowah and the rejected "stone" are separate individuals and the the builders are the

   heads and elders of Israel.

Now to give you some examples from Yoshua himself or from his apostles that Yoshua is not the God in the flesh as false 'Christians' assume,  here they are:

1. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal

   life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but

   if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments [that is the Torah] [Matthew 19:16-17].

   If Jesus was truly the God of Israel in the flesh as pagans and apostates think, then why in the world would

   he lie right here by denying that he isn't, because he refuses to be called "good," and Jesus says only the

   God of Israel is good?

2. Again, if you look at John 5:22-23 it says, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment

   unto the son: That all [men] should honour the son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not

   the son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." By these verses we see that Jesus not the God do

   Israel, because the God of Israel does not have a dual personality disorder and we can clearly see that Jesus

   was sent and commissioned from above to do a particular and unique job for the God of Israel. With all

   judgment being placed in the hands of Yehowah's most faithful servant, being His son, let us now turn to

   Revelation 20:11-12 to see what it says, "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose

   face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small  

   and great, stand before the throne [the KJ translators deliberately tainted the verse right here by putting

   "God" instead of "throne" giving the satanic illusion that Jesus is the God of Israel]; and the books were

   opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those

   things which were written in the books, according to their works." So by these two verses from Revelation all

   by themselves we would not know who was sitting on the throne, but if we use the two verses taken from the

   Gospel of John which I provided we know exactly who it is - Yoshua. We would get the same answer if we

   continue to read in Revelation. But let me first ask this question: Where is this 'judgment' taking place? On

   earth, right outside of ancient Jerusalem according to the prophets of Israel. Keep in mind that the heir of

   King David must rule where King David ruled, being Jerusalem. Now if we read on to Rev 21:2-3, we read,

   "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God [meaning the God of Israel is literally

   somewhere else] out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out

    of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of the God of Israel [is] with men, and He will dwell with them

   [meaning - He was not dwelling with them yet, even though His precious son was currently doing so], and

   they shall be His people, and the God of Israel Himself shall be with them, [and be] their God." Thus, making

   it abundantly clear by John the apostle that John never taught that Jesus [who was reigning on earth] was

   the God of Israel Who did eventually came down to earth to be with His son after the day of judgment had

   been executed by His son and servant. So as I said, the filthy trinity doctrine came into existence around

   170 ce by ignorant pagans and non-Jews. So if you believe Yoshua is the God of Israel in the flesh you must

   repent. Again, to prove once again that Yoshua [Jesus] will be the one judging on the day of judgment, this

   is what he says in Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me [proving Yoshua shall judge, not the

   God of Israel], Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father

   which is in heaven [Wow, again to prove my point, Yoshua just claimed that the God of Israel is not

   standing in front of them in bodily form, but was residing in heaven and will still be in heaven even up to the

   day of judgment, but Jesus will be on earth judging on the day of judgment].... And then will I profess unto

   them, I never knew you: depart from me [here we see it is Yoshua condemning people to hell, not the God of

   Israel], ye that perform not [nor uphold] the Torah [literal translation] or the laws of the prophets."

Well, there are many other examples I can use but I will refrain for right now, but you are free to look at these other articles on this website to give you a more accurate description of who Yoshua of Nazareth is:

Why Jesus is not the God of Israel incarnate; Rather he is His actual and personal son incarnate

or

More proofs why Jesus is not the God of Israel

and other pages throughout this website.

Now let us get back on track concerning the 'virgin birth' and what Isaiah 7:14 truly says:

As somewhat mentioned, in a round about way, though we do not care what the KJV says, nor what any other English or foreign language translation has to say reading this passage, we need to know what the Hebrew actually says.

The word "virgin" actually does not exist in Isaiah 7:14, in the Hebrew that is. Yet Isaiah does use the word, virgin, in 5 other passages throughout his book, but not here.

So, where did this whole "myth" stem from, if "virgin" is not found in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14? In all honesty, here is a small history lesson for you: When Alexander the Great came through he Hellenized the areas he conquered and his generals that ruled in his stead continued with this Hellenization process. Because of this the whole area began to speak in Greek and so the Jewish sages that lived way back in 285 BCE decided to translate the Tanach into Greek. Well, when they did this they accidentally wrote the word "virgin" in this passage. This Greek translation is called the Septuagint. In Hebrew, however, the word is "almah" which simply means "a young woman." It does not mean "virgin" in an outright since. Rather, this word is a blanket type of word that covers all types of young females, regardless of whether they were married and no longer virgins, or if they were single or even if they were a slavegirl to someone.

Now let me move back to Genesis 3 again for a brief moment. In order to understand our Jewish Torah correctly, we must also look at the other passages concerning the messiah as a whole to get a more complete picture of who he might be and not simply look at a single passage and then form some type of doctrine from that one passage which the prophets of Israel may not have ever taught, for that would be fatalistic.

A great example of what I mean is the fact that so many false 'Christians' assume that when Adam transgressed he jeopardized his authority over the earth, because of a quote found in Luke 4:6 and by the utter non-sense that foolish preachers say on top of this particular misinterpreted verse . Here is what the passage from Luke says, "And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." In truth, you cannot take the quotes of certain people as truth just because it is found in the gospels or in the Tanach, because of who the person is. We are talking about satan here, not the God of Israel, trying to cause Yoshua to worship him. In all reality, mankind never lost his authority to "rule" over the fish of the sea and so forth, rather only the ground was cursed because of his transgression, but the God of Israel reversed this curse after the flood when things had a new start, because this is what HaShem says to Noach at that time, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth (Genesis 8:21)." Second of all, to counter what Luke wrote in his quotation of the devil, this is what Daniel the prophet [a person that speak on the behalf of the God of ISraael and not himself - I stress this] says in Daniel 4:25 when speaking about Nebuchadnezzar in the name of Yehowah, "That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will." So, you see how all of this false doctrine gets started based on someone's misinterpretation of scripture and history. Now if you would like to know a little bombshell according to the only surviving eyewitness account of Yoshua's life, that is John and his gospel, the 40 days of temptation by the devil NEVER occurred. This is because according to John, John and Andrew started following Yoshua the very next day following his baptism by John the Baptist from the Jordan River and on third day they [Yoshua, John, Andrew, Philip. Peter and Nathanael] attended a wedding in Cana. Whereas according to the other three gospels Yoshua went into the wilderness for forty days and then chose Peter, Andrew, James and John from the Sea of Galilee. So you see, here is a whole series of blatant contradictions. Thus, the Gospel of John discredits the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, because John speaks of himself and what he personally experienced.  Whereas the other three authors had no direct contact with Yoshua, thus they never saw him, nor heard his wonderful words. They had to rely on passed down stories, which may or may not be reliable, unlike John.

Now later on I will use this type of example of misunderstood verses, as I just gave [where 'Christains believe the words satan more than the prophets, like Daniel], concerning another false belief of where the moshiach must be born, where multitudes of people assume it to be in Bethlehem.

Footnote: In regards to the above Genesis 8 quote, you will notice that the curse of Adam was reversed, which dealt with the ground, but the curse of Eve was not reversed, concerning labor pains, because she is the one that sinned first and then tempted Adam to eat of the fruit which she had already eaten.

In truth my dear friends, according to the personal promises of at least 6 men, the messiah would in fact be the personal and physical son, grandson or descendant from their actual loins. If the messiah would have not come from their actual seed and loins, then their personal promise from HaShem would be broken and that would make the God if Israel a lair, which HE is NOT!!! Nor is He unfaithful. So with that being said, the words given to Eve, was not excluding Adam if you were to include all the messianic prophecies, but it included him, thus the moshiach would in fact be "the son of Adam [where Adam means: man = son of man]" and not from some virgin girl. Furhtermore, if the moshiach did not descend from these six men, it would defeat the whole purpose of the covenant of circumcision that Yehowah made with Abraham and his descendants. For the point of circumcision was not because of health reasons as some falsely assume, for if that were the case He would have made man without foreskin. Rather, the covenant of circumcision was given as a sign to Abraham and his descendants in that each and every time that they should look upon that body member, they would know that the holy moshiach would come from Abraham's loins or seed or from that body memeber and not by some miraculous virgin birth.

Now let me back up all that I am saying by citing some passages for you. According to prophecy given by Moses, the moshiach would in fact be born from one of his "brethren," not from a virgin daughter. This passage is found in Deuteronomy 18:15-19,

"Yehowah [The LORD] thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of Yehowah [The LORD] thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yehowah [The LORD] my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And Yehowah [The LORD] said unto me, They have well [spoken that] which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him."

Do you see where I underlined the three sections in this passage? By these underlined sections it is very clear that the moshiach must not be born from a virgin, but by the seed of man, from one of Moses' Israelite brethren, thus making the moshiach strictly an Israelite.

By another passage we can clearly see that he must come from the seed of Judah. This particular passage is found in Genesis 49:8 & 10,

"Judah, thou [art he] whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand [shall be] in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee...... The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet [Meaning: from his seed], until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be]."

Again, it is clear that he must come from the literal seed of Judah and not miraculously made in the womb of some virgin daughter that merely came from some tribesman that was from the lineage of Judah. In fact Matthew and Luke never even claim which tribe 'Mary' comes from, nor do they give the names of her parents! Yet, both have the audacity of claiming, in contradiction to the two virgin birth accounts, that Yoshua is somehow linked to David through Joseph instead of 'Mary'!!! Now to add to the contradictions among the two gospels, despite the fact that Luke tries to convince you that Jesus was somehow of the seed of David through a mere marriage to a woman, he writes "that Jesus was the "supposed" son of Joseph, the son of Heli [or Eli], the son of Matthat, the son of Levi" and so on.  Which is an entirely different geneology than what Matthew writes, for he writes that Jesus was the son of Jacob, the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar and so on. But let me say again, why mention Joseph's lineage - he is 100% irrelevant?

FOOTNOTE #1: The reason I put Mary in quotes because there are so many discrepancies, fabrications and anti-Jewish theology in the three gospels that the reliability of Yoshua's mother's name is now called into question. Whereas according to the only surviving eyewitness account of Yoshua's life, the gospel of John, John never mentions her by name, but only refers to her as "the mother of Yoshua."

FOOTNOTE #2: The word, 'supposed' is an interesting word here, because one can interpret this in two ways, which are these: a) the word is used because the people did not realize he was born from a virgin and simply 'assumed' he was the son of Joseph [but as I said, why mention the genealogy of Joseph, because he is literally irrelevant?]. b) Or, Luke is using this word in a historical context as a person trying to gather history to write a paper or a document, so "according to all accounts he is 'apparently [= supposed]' - and according to my findings, the son of Joseph." Again, it makes no sense to write a whole narrative where Joseph had no involvement with "Mary," yet list Joseph's lineage as if he was involved with "Mary."

Now, to go along with the above passage from Genesis 49 is the fact that Jacob, the son of Isaac, was the very person uttering this particular prophecy about Judah. Therefore he obviously knew how blessed he was by the fact that through his very seed would come the moshiach, the righteous king. A king that is appointed by the God of Israel to rule all the earth and not just a city state as the kings of Jacob's did, nor simply a region or vast region like Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander, the Italians in Jesus' time, Attila and the Huns or the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire.

Again, if it is very clear he must come from Judah and Jacob, we then automatically know the moshiach must also come from Isaac and Abraham, without even needing to look up those prophecies, even though I will.

But before I do I want to tell you the deep meaning of the word, "forever" in the eyes of Biblical Judaism. While everyone may know that the word means, "to carry on or to continue without end," they may not realize that when this word involves a person, it means that the person or subject will even make it past the day of Judgment where all men will be judged by ALL the various laws that the prophets gave; which are, for example, the many laws of Moses, of Samuel [1 Samuel 8:9-17], of David [1 Chron 9:22, 15:16, 16:7,  2 Chron 35:4 & 35:15] of Hanani [2 Chron 16:7], of Jehu [2 Chron 19:2] and many other famous and not so famous prophets. Keep in mind that the prophets of Israel or of Biblical Judaism, and even Jesus and James [the very blood brother of Jesus] never taught the things that Paul literally invented, that is: "one is saved by grace." No, according to the prophets and to Jesus and James - salvation is only gained on the day of judgment if, and that's a big if, a person has kept the Torah faithfully. Here is the proof to all that I am saying:

a) All of Ezekiel 18,

b) Psalm 119:155 - "Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not Thy statutes."

c) Jesus said, "depart from me all ye that have not performed the Torah or are free from the law [Matthew

   7:23]." 

   Or "If you want to enter into life, you must keep the commandments," as he says in Matthew 19:17.

d) And, here is what James said in James 2:24, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not

   by faith only?"

So if a man does not keepeth the Torah he shall go to hell. Words are worthless to the God of Israel.  He demands performance, that being - continual righteous conduct that the law of Moses and of the others point out and dictate. Therefore, according to the God of Israel and not some foolish ex-pharisee named Paul, righteousness and holiness is strictly or only obtained through obedience. Salvation is NEVER guaranteed simply because one simply believes in the God of Israel and that He actually has a son and his name is Yoshua ben Yosef. Quite the opposite, living the mandatory Torah based life is the point James is making in James chapter two when he mocks simple believers by saying, "Thou believe that there is one God; thou does well: the devils also believe, and tremble." And this is why Jeremiah wrote what he did in Jeremiah 42:19-22, "The LORD hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day. For ye dissembled in your hearts, when ye sent me unto the LORD your God, saying, Pray for us unto the LORD our God; and according unto all that the LORD our God shall say, so declare unto us, and we will do [it]. And [now] I have this day declared [it] to you; but ye have not obeyed the voice of the LORD your God, nor any [thing] for the which he hath sent me unto you. Now therefore know certainly that ye shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, in the place whither ye desire to go [and] to sojourn." Again, the differences between faith, praise and worship vs. conduct, performance and literally fearing and dreading Yehowah is the reason Samuel said what he did to Saul in 1 Sam 15:22-23, "Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from [being] king."

So with keeping these things in mind, when a prophecy speaks of a person in a good manner with the word, "forever" that particular prophecy is speaking of none other than the moshiach himself or of his kingdom. This is because a man's ways might change down the line as we see with Solomon or with Joash, therefore his [or a person's] salvation is never a permanent guarantee or fixture once having his name written in the book of life. Rather, salvation is strictly and only based on someone's current condition of how they are walking. This is why Yehowah says what He does in Ezekiel 18:24, as: "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." Or, again this is why He said what He did in Exodus 32:33, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of my book."

So with that being said, the salvation of any single person can not be guaranteed, because it is strictly based on current conditions. Again, the whole chapter of Ezekiel 18 deals with this "current" condition doctrine. In this chapter HaShem cares not how righteous you were, if you are now doing evil, for He says through Ezekiel that none of his righteousness shall be remembered. On the flip side, however, HaShem does not look to your past transgressions if you are now doing all of the torah. For He says that none of your wickedness shall be remembered. Only the moshiach's walk is prophesied to be absolutely torah observant, without fail. And, because of the moshiach's faithfulness to the torah like no one else, the God of Israel also prophesied that He will give him a monarchy, a throne and a house that will last for the rest of eternity. This will start at the very moment he starts reigning as king over all the earth, on earth, as the rightful heir to David, where he literally descended from. With this someone might ask, 'How can the God of Israel predict the constant walk of someone before they are even born, to even know if that person will actually be a holy person or not.?"

I apologize for getting off track a bit, but this information plays a pivotal in understanding Biblical Judaism vs. organized, mainstream 'rabbinical Judaism' and any tenets of mainstream 'Christianity.' Here is a doctrine of Biblical Judaism: dispute what you hear on the street in that the God of Heaven knows all things, this is not the case. In fact, anything and everything of the future He does not know, EXCEPT for the things He plans - which is a whole bunch of stuff. Let me quickly expand on this: In Judaism, if one knows someone will do wrong with something, like a gun, and then gives that gun to that person, the giver also transgresses, but if someone gives a gun to a friend for Chanukah and then the new owner then uses it a year later in a crime, the giver is not guilty in any way. This is how creation was at the beginning and the God of Israel still acts in this manner. Thus, when Adam and Eve sinned, along with the serpent, then Cain later on and many others after them, the God of Israel is free from guilt, sin and any sort of participation.  But on the other hand, when He makes a plan no one has the ability to thwart it, because no one is powerful enough to stop Him. It would be like me telling a snail on the sidewalk, "Tomorrow I will step on you" and because the snail has no power to over power me, my plans succeed and I step on it. Another thing of Judaism is this, if one is obedient to the laws and statutes of HaShem, the God of Israel - the God of Israel promises you success in war and in fulfilling His desire through you. Moses, Joshua and David are great examples, for they were pure and upright in their torah observance and we read that not a single soul of their camps died in battle and that HaShem continually talked to all three of them in order for them to succeed. Because of this help and because of their torah observance they always won their battles, except for one time during the time Joshua when Achan [Joshua 7:1] sinned against HaShem. Now with all this in mind, dispute what mainstream  or 'rabbinical' Judaism says, according to the prophets, the moshiach was already existing during the time of these men and was already a faithful torah observant servant to HaShem, being His most faithful and most powerful. Because of this HaShem was going to help him fulfill His desires as He did with Moses, Joshua and David. Here is some proof to his existence as a spirit long before his spirit was inserted by the God of Israel within the conception of the actual and physical seed of Joseph and his wife through natural or normal intercourse.

"Yehowah said to my [this is King David] master [sir or commander], 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thy enemies a footstool for thy feet [Psalm 110]."  The word, "my" points out that David is talking in the present tense. Likewise, we clearly see that the 'master' of David is not the God of Israel, but is in subjection to Him.

Here is what Proverbs 30:1-4,

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, [even] the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal, Surely I [am] more brutish than [any] man, and have not the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy ones. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] His name, and what [is] His son's name, if thou canst tell?"  I love this verse because my Jewish brothers have missed this verse for years. Most of them don't know that this verse even exists in their Tanach and that their God even has an actual son. In fact, when they think upon the age of King David, they falsely assume that "the son of David" is nonexistent until he is born. Yet as we can see by the words of David in Psalm 110 and of Solomon in Proverbs 30, they very well knew that their future descendant already existed. The reason my Jewish brothers' only believe that their God, Yehowah, stands alone with the angels and reject the fact that there stands one higher and more powerful than the angels, yet lower than then their God is because they are only using selected prophecies that give the appearance that the "son of David" can never exist until he is actually born.  Lets now visit some of those passages, while keeping in mind all that I just said concerning the word "forever:"

Maregaal Ban Yaakov

And, Was Yoshua even born in Bethlehem vs. Nazereth?

I am editing this page right now 1/14 3AM