The Virgin Birth | 3

-

The Virgin Birth |3

Introduction
 
When reading the Virgin Birth accounts in the New Testament, one is reading with, in my opinion, a sever bias based on the miss-translation in Isaiah 7:14 and faulty understanding of how genealogy is reckoned by Torah. The following are assumptions made by Virgin Birth believers: that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are of Joseph and Mary, respectively; that Joseph's genealogy doesn't matter, but Mary's does; that Mary is a descendant of David, hence that's how Jesus retains his rightful inheritance to the throne. 

A simple examination...
 
Matthew 1:17 gives three epochs, 14 generations each, from Abraham to Christ. It reads, “17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” If you count the names epoch by epoch by epoch, it’s 14, 14, and 13. Why? because they dropped Joseph from Jesus’ genealogy. 
 
I’ve found that v. 16 as it stands is the verse that undermines the progression, not to mention vv. 18-25, which I'm now suspecting are interpolations based on the miss-translation of Isaiah 14 (see Part 2). How else can they have a Virgin Birth? Verse 16 reads, “16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Other manuscripts and versions are enlightening on this point. See the examples below:
  • ”And Jacob begat Joseph and Joseph begat Iesous” (Ferrar group of Miniscules)
  • Greek manuscripts coded o, f 13, I 547m, it, a, b, c, d, g, k, q all give this reading: “Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called Christ.”
  • Luke’s Gospel has a scribal addition to obfuscate these facts: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…the son of David…the son of Judah…the son of God” (Luke 3:23,31,33,38). The brackets aren’t part of the text and is an obvious editorial remark akin to how the KJV supplies italics to help bring meaning. It’s an obvious bias.

Son of God?

So how can we call Jesus the son of God if he isn't born of a virgin? After all, Luke's Gospel says, in chapter 1 verse 35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Before we consider some additional evidence to the contrary, let's briefly define what "son of God" means. The Trinitarian and Modalist will claim the term proves Jesus is either "God the Son" (the "second person of the Trinity") or "God." However, we can see how Jesus defines it. Matthew 26:63,64 says,

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Jesus agrees with his accusers as to who he identified himself as: the Christ, i.e. the son of God. This shows us that "Messiah" ("Christ") is a synonym for "Son of God." That's the true meaning of the term as Jesus intended for everyone to understand it. The trouble is that his own people refused to recognize that fact and put him to death, falsely accusing him of blasphemy!

So it is correct to call Jesus the "son of God" or "Messiah," but when was he made to be such? We now look at the counter-evidence. The Gospel of the Ebionites.   

Fragment Three
1. Many people were baptized, and Jesus also came to be baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into him.
2. Then a voice from heaven was heard, “You are my beloved Representative, and I am very pleased with you.”
3. He continued, “I have given you life on this day.”
4. Then suddenly a great light began to shine onto that place. Then John saw him and said, “Who are you, Master?”
5. Then a voice from heaven was heard, “This is my beloved Representative, of whom I am very pleased.”
6. Then John fell down at his feet and said, “I beg you to baptize me, Master.”
7. But he would not. He said, “Accept this, because it is appropriate in order for everything to be achieved.”
 
Fragment 3 verse 3 says "I have given you life on this day," or, more familiarly, "Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee," as was prophesied in Psalm 2:6 and 7. In other words Jesus came from David's loins as was prophesied, and he was made Christ, or "God's son." 

Conclusion

It's only because of redactions, interpolations, and miss-translations, as well as persecutions, that the Virgin Birth view won favor and is now considered the "orthodox" position. However, this view gives too much credence to doctrines that are hazardous (immaculate conception; perpetual virginity; sinlessness of Mary; the assumption of Mary; the preexistence of Christ; the deity of Christ--all of which are fantastical, Gnostic myths based on paganism). The truth is that Jesus was born of completely natural means, but he was made the son of God, the Messiah, by YHWH at the baptism.