The Virgin Birth - 21 Points
(REVISED - 4/1/01)
By: "mailto:jon.francis@halleluyah.org", Feb. 2001

Dear Jon, you have presented this so-called study which supposedly presents proof that the first two chapters of the book of Matthew were added by a later anonymous author who had no authority to do so. Thus your study does two things which are anathema to my mind. #1 It violates the word of YAHWEH my Elohim and #2 It violates and takes away from the glory and sanctity of our Blessed Savior YAHshua the Messiah.

You claim that you have made your presentation courteous, thoughtful and well documented, but my answers to you will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not. Let me ask you a question, Jon. If someone violated your mother, your wife, one of your children, would you evoke strong emotions or would you be courteous and thoughtful toward that person? Well, you have violated something and someone who are more precious to me than mother, wife or children. That’s right, Jon, YAHWEH my Elohim and His Word are much more precious to me than my mother, wife or children because YAHWEH is my true Father and Elohim. Had it not been for Him, I would not have had a mother, wife or children. Likewise, YAHshua is not only my Savior and Redeemer, but the One through Whom my mother, wife, children, family, friends and enemies alike will receive salvation and redemption. Thus, my response to you will be with documentation and EMOTION! You desire a response that is neither cold nor hot, a lukewarm response (Laodicean). You won’t get that from me just like a person who had violated someone dear to you would not receive a courteous response. (Unless you have no true feelings.)

Jon, I am going to show you where you are in error. When I point out your errors with documentation, thoughtfulness and EMOTION, I expect you to delete that point from your 21 points that you have posted, until you will have no points remaining. Then, since you have sinned before YAHWEH, the assembly, and the world (having posted your egregious points on the Internet), I expect you to truly be humble this time, and write a letter of confession, repentance and apology. If you fail to do this, by the power invested in me as an ordained elder in the body of the Messiah, I and others will pray that you be given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Sovereign YAHshua (1 Cor. 5:5). It is time, Jon, that men ordained to position in the body of the Messiah take their power and utilize it to the glory of YAHWEH, YAHshua and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Elder Jerry Healan
YAHWEH'S Evangelical Assembly

I present this study on the Virgin Birth and Matthew Chapters 1 and 2 for your review. This is a study that has a tendency to evoke strong emotions. However, I believe the subject matter to be important. I have tried to make my presentation courteous, thoughtful and well documented. I welcome discourse that is courteous, thoughtful and well documented.

Point #1
In Deuteronomy 12:34, Yahweh states, "Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it." So, we have a command not to take from Yahweh's word. We also have a command not to add to it. We have an obligation to correct wrongly added verses as much as we have an obligation to not add verses. It cuts both ways.

COMMENT: While this is true, the fact remains that there are no original Scriptures left in existence of either the Old Testament or the New Testament. However, there are scholars who have had in their possession Scriptures that are within a couple hundred years of the original. And many copies have been carefully compared for authenticity. One of these scholars is E. W. Bullinger who makes many remarks about words, verses, etc. which have been added or deleted. I find it strange that he has been so meticulous to make notes on words and phrases which have been added or even deleted, but never mentions that the first two chapters of Matthew were later added to the texts.

Again, in Mt. 1:25 which states, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name [YAHshua]." Bullinger notes; "All the Texts omit "her firstborn" on this weak and suspicious evidence. But there is no question about it in Luke 2.7."

Again, commenting on 1 Jn. 5:7 which says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Bullinger says, "bear record = bear witness, as in v. 6. in heaven, &c., omitting all the words from ‘in heaven’ to ‘in earth’ (v. 8) inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS. before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text."

Another scholar, George Lamsa, who published the Lamsa Bible from the Aramaic or Syriac Scriptures has some very important statements to make, "They (the gospels) were written a few years after the resurrection and some of the portions were written by Matthew while [YAHshua] was preaching. They were not handed down orally and then written after the Pauline Epistles, as some western scholars say; they were written many years before those Epistles. Other contemporary Jewish literature was produced at the same time the Gospels were in circulation. The Gospels, as well as the Epistles, were written in Aramaic, the language of the Jewish people, both in Palestine and in the Greco-Roman Empire.

Another fact is that there are many ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts that have been discovered. Many of these manuscripts are deficient of some of their pages. Certain leaves may be missing here or there, but still, there is no mention of Mat. 1 & 2 having been missing from any of these manuscripts. All of the more perfect and complete manuscripts have Mat. 1 & 2 in them. Since there have been controversies down through the ages, where are the manuscripts that Mat. 1 & 2 are missing from? If you cannot supply the proof, then you are found to be guilty of what you are charging others. You are found deleting from YAHWEH'S word what was there originally.

Point #2
The genealogies of Yahshua in Matthew and Luke are irreconcilable. They cannot co-exist. One is wrong. Everyone has heard the oft quoted answer that, "well, the genealogy in Matthew is really the genealogy of Joseph and the genealogy in Luke is really that of Miriam." I have two responses. The first is that at least there is recognition of the fact that there are TWO genealogies. My second response is really a question. Can you show me another example anywhere in the Bible in which the genealogy of a person is rendered through a woman? If you can, please share the location of the verse with me. However, I can show literally hundreds of examples in which the genealogical record flows through the males. I humbly submit that their theory is simply not substantiated. Please review the following "http://www.flash.net/~jfra/genealogies.htm".

COMMENT: YAHshua's genealogy didn’t come through a male. While it is true that the genealogy of all men come through the males, Scripture reveals that YAHshua's true Father was the Heavenly Father YAHWEH (Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb. 11:17; 1 Jn. 4:19). Joseph was the step-father of YAHshua, but YAHWEH chose to provide the genealogy of the step-father and also of the mother in order to connect Him with David and the throne from both genealogies.

You say that you can’t find anyone’s genealogy coming through a woman, but Zelophehad, son of Hepher’s genealogy certainly had to go through his daughters because he had no sons. Num. 27:1. However, neither can you find anyone’s genealogy coming from the Heavenly Father YAHWEH as in YAHshua's case. But YAHWEH and others proclaim that YAHshua is His "only begotten Son."

Miriam’s genealogy also connects YAHshua to the priesthood because Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth and Miriam were cousins. YAHshua is the Heavenly High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, "Christendom in the Apostles’ Creed confesses that its Lord and Saviour was ‘conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.’ This formulation of faith, going back to the second century, is based upon two NT passages, Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-2:7. The Matthean account is apparently derived from an Antiochean source, the Luken from a Palestinian; it seems, however, that ultimately the Matthean version came from Joseph, the Lukan from Mary. These two accounts are the only NT passages which deal explicitly with the birth of [YAHshua]. In their monographs on this subject both Orr and Machen have shown by exhaustive analysis that these accounts are first century documents which have been transmitted in unimpeachable integrity; because textual interpolation or corruption is ruled out, this miracle must be accepted as a valid element in the apostolic witness. Though independent, the accounts are complementary; moreover, while they alone definitely teach the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, other NT writings either presuppose that doctrine or are at least completely congruous with it. The two evangelists affirm this miracle flatly as a matter of history. They represent no arguments to support it; they draw no conclusions from it. They simply state it as an event of indisputable reality. No slightest evidence of apologetic concern can be detected in their narratives. Hence critics of the doctrine are totally unjustified in dismissing it as a piece of illegitimate rationalization, an attempt to support the mystery of the incarnation by a biological wonder." (p. 882)

Holman Bible Dictionary, "Matthew gave the account from the viewpoint of Joseph. He was betrothed to Mary. Before they were married, she was discovered to be pregnant. Joseph planned to divorce her without public scandal. Only then did [Elohim] reveal to Joseph that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit. This was seen as the fulfillment of the prophecy that a virgin would conceive and bear a son who would be named Emmanuel (Isa. 7:14). Luke gave the events from the viewpoint of Mary. An angel appeared to her while she was still a virgin betrothed to Joseph. It was revealed to her that she would bear a son who would be called ‘the Son of the Highest’ (Luke 1:32). As in Matthew, no room is left in the account for human agency in the conception of [YAHshua].

"Belief in the virgin birth is a central doctrine of Christian thought. Its basis lies in the two passages in Matthew 1 and Luke 1. The writers stated that Mary was a virgin when [YAHshua] was conceived and when He was born. However, the real emphasis is upon the miraculous conception of [YAHshua]. The new creative act of [YAHWEH] is seen in His bringing His Son into the world." (p. 1395)

Tyndale’s New Bible Dictionary, "The two accounts of the birth of [YAHshua] in Matthew and Luke are clearly independent of one another, and both record that he was born through the direct action of the Holy Spirit without a human father (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:34). If it were not for the miracle involved, anyone would accept the record as adequate.

"John also begins [the Messiah's] earthly ministry with the Baptist. Later he indicates that there were rumours about the illegitimacy of [YAHshua] when in 8:41 the Jews declared, ‘We (emphatic pronoun and emphatic position) were not born of fornication.’ Less evidential, although accepted by come Christian writers from Tertullian onwards, and by Douglas Edwards in The Virgin Birth in History and Faith, is the reading in the Verone Latin Codex of Jn. 1:13, which has the singular, ‘who was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of [YAHWEH]’. (this reading is attested in no Gk. MS.)

"Paul, the companion of Luke, uses language that implies acceptance of the virgin birth. When he speaks of the coming, or birth, of [YAHshua the Messiah], he uses the general verb, ginomai, not gennaō which tends to associate the husband (e.g. Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7). This is particularly marked in Gal. 4:4, where ‘[Elohim] sent forth his Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman’. By contrast in 4:23 Ishmael ‘was born’, gegennētai (from gennaō).

"In 1 Cor. 15:45-48 a fair interpretation is to see both Adam and [the Messiah] coming miraculously from the hand of [YAHWEH]. Irenaeus links this with the virgin birth....Objections are in two forms. Even though some call attention to poorly supported variants in single texts, none of these overthrows the description of the fact in all MSS." (p. 1238)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, "The NT witness to [YAHshua's] birth is found in the Godpels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-56; 2:1-7). The position of these texts in the canonical literature is virtually undisputed. L. M. Seeet’s verdict of fifty years ago still stands: ‘If we are to allow any weight at all to textual evidence there is no question as to the infancy narratives, either in whole or in part. Their position is flawless and unassailable’ (p. 3053).

"Matthew’s birth narrative clearly teaches that [YAHshua] was born without the agency of a human father (Mat. 1:18, 20, 23, 25). The language of Matthew’s genealogy (1:1-16) underscores this as well. While seeking to establish [YAHshua's] legal right to the messianic throne of David through Joseph, Matthew shifts in v. 16 from the active ‘begot’ (egénnēssen) to the passive ‘was born’ (egennéthē) to account for [YAHshua's] birth. He thus breaks the normal genealogical pattern by stating the [YAHshua] was born of Mary, not begotten by Joseph.

"Luke 1:27 indicates that Mary was still a virgin (parthénos) at the time of the Annunciation, being betrothed but not yet married to Joseph. The repetition of parthénos at the end of v. 27 serves to emphasize Mary’s virginity. Since it was normal for a betrothed Jewish maiden to be a virgin, it seems likely that Luke repeats this word to highlight the miraculous nature of [YAHshua's] conception. (Vv. 34f. prove that parthénos can only mean ‘virgin’ in this context.)

"Those who deny the historicity of the Virgin Birth cannot do so on the basis of the meaning of the text itself. For this reason such denials tend to speculate on the origins of the birth accounts. The most common theory, which assumes a variety of forms, is that the Virgin Birth was not a historical event at all but rather a theological interpretation of who [YAHshua] was (so, e.g., Barclay, p.6). This theological interpretation, so the theory runs, was a later addition by the Evangelists to earlier (purely natualistic) traditions about [YAHshua's] birth, and reflects in story form a developed Christology similar to those set forth in Paul and John (who themselves never mention the Virgin Birth.)

"This theory is not without its difficulties, however. For example, the NT evidence indicates that the family of [YAHshua] lived in Jerusalem at least through the early 60’s, with James the Lord’s brother being the leader of the church there. The prominence of [YAHshua's] relatives in the Jerusalem church makes it virtually impossible that any spurious traditions about [YAHshua's] brith would gain credibility. Indeed, who would feel free to invent such an account under those circumstances?

"Other critics have argued that, while Luke’s narrative is basically Hebraic, the Virgin Birth is a later theological interpolation within that historical account. But this misses the point of the narrative as a whole. The story of [YAHshua's] conception and birth is juxtaposed with that of John the Baptist throughout the first two chapters of Luke’s narrative. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to regard those portions of Luke’s narrative that mention the supernatural origin of [YAHshua] as later additions forced upon an earlier historical account. From a strictly literary point of view, the Virgin Birth of [the Messiah] is the climax of the narrative. The annunciation to Zechariah and the birth of John are set forth by Luke not merely out of concern for historical thoroughness, but both in concert with and in contrast to the events surrounding [YAHshua's] coming. To regard as interpolation that toward which the entire narrative progresses is a highly dubious theory.

"The notion that the miraculous nature of [YAHshua's] birth was a later doctrinal development of the Church is likewise trendered doubtful by the fact that neither account is a doctrinal treatise. While each does indeed contain theological elements, the framework is not one of christological dogma but of salvation-historical fulfillment of [YAHWEH'S] promises to Israel. Neither Matthew nor Luke draws any conclusions about the meaning fo the virgin Birth as it relates to the person of [the Messiah] (e.g., His deity or humanity). (pp. 990-991)

Point #3
Matthew 2:23 makes reference to a prophecy that doesn’t exist. Could it be that we simply don’t have a record of the prophecy? On the other hand, maybe the writer of Matthew Chapter Two simply invented the supposed prophecy.

Matthew 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of Yahweh appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of Elohim in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

COMMENT: Upon further study into the subject of the word "Nazarene", there is actually more than one prophecy tied in with this very statement. YAHshua was called YAHshua of Nazareth in each of the four evangels and also the book of Acts. Peter healed the man at the gate of the temple in the name of YAHshua the Messiah of Nazareth (Acts 3:6) and again declared to the assembly of rulers, elders and scribes that he had done this act in the name of YAHshua the Messiah of Nazareth (Acts 4:10). Paul later accounts that when YAHshua appeared to him on the way to Damascus, and he asked Him who He was, YAHshua replied that He was YAHshua of Nazareth (Acts 22:8). Here He was in heaven and yet declaring that He was YAHshua of Nazareth. The designation of the town of Nazareth was so important that the believers were called "the sect of the Nazarenes," (Acts 24:5).

There has to be an important meaning to this word that does not immediately meet the eye. Even Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance says that the word Nazareth is of uncertain derivative. (See #3478 of the Greek Lexicon) But we do know that when YAHWEH utilizes names and terms for His people, those names and terms have an important meaning behind them. For instance, those who belong to YAHshua in this day and age are and will be Zion according to Rev. 14:1. Zion means a monumental or guiding pillar. Those of Zion are to be the ones who are pillars that guide others to the YAHWEH, the Messiah, and the new Jerusalem which means "the city of peace."

How are we going to discover what the name "Nazareth/Nazarene" means? First, we must realize that the name has to be Hebrew since it was the name of a city wherein dwelt Hebrews and was in a province called Galilee which also is a Hebrew name. We also must recognize that it was a word that was important enough to have appeared in several prophecies related to the Messiah.

The scholars give aid in one designation for E. W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible notes that the word Nazareth is related to the Hebrew word "nezer" which is utilized in Isa. 11:1 and 60:21. Isa. 11:1 proclaims, "And there shall come forth a rod (choter) out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (nezer) shall grow out of his roots." Isa. 60:8-22 proclaims, "Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? 9 Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of YAHWEH thy Elohim, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. 10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. 11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. 12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. 13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious. 14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of YAHWEH, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. 15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. 16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I YAHWEH am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. 17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. 18 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. 19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but YAHWEH shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy Elohim thy glory. 20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for YAHWEH shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. 21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch (nezer) of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. 22 A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I YAHWEH will hasten it in his time."

The interesting thing about this word branch (nezer) is that it is #5342 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance which is defined as a shoot or a descendant which is what YAHshua was. It comes from #5341 (natsar/nazar) which is defined as a prim. root; to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain, obey, etc.) or a bad one (to conceal, etc.) [Note: a study of Scripture reveals that there is the good Branch which is highly spoken of and a bad branch which is ill spoken of, fulfilling this definition] He (YAHshua) was a shoot or descendant (nezer) of David the rod (choter) of Jesse spoken of in Isa. 11:1.

He is also the branch of YAHWEH'S planting for YAHshua proclaimed, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the Husbandman," Jn. 15:1. We can understand what is being said here through agricultural practices. In many cases, especially with vines, if one wants to have more plants of the same nature, all he has to do is cut off a branch from the parental vine and root it in good soil. This branch will grow and will bear branches its own self. Thus, YAHshua is the Branch (nezer/nazar) of David which YAHWEH has planted and we are the branches attached to Him. Thus, we are nezers or nazarenes.

YAHshua proclaimed, "I am the Root and Offspring (branch/nezer) of David, the bright and morning star," Rev. 22:16.

Can this be substantiated by Scripture? Certainly! John the Baptist’s father Zechariah proclaimed, "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of YAHWEH to prepare His ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto His People by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our Elohim; whereby the dayspring (Gk. = anatole = a rising of light) from on high hath visited us," Lk. 1:76-78. Fits right in with the definition of Nazareth does it not?

Matthew also confirms this, "Now when YAHshua had heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, ‘The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The People which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up," 4:12-16.

While the word "zarach/zerach" is not employed in this portion of the prophet Isaiah (9:1-2), it is employed in Isa. 60, the chapter already referred to concerning the word branch (nezer). Isa. 60:1-3, "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of YAHWEH is risen (zarach) upon thee. 2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but YAHWEH shall arise (zarach) upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising."

There was an old man named Simeon dwelling in Jerusalem when Joseph and Miriam took YAHshua to the temple to offer the offering on her behalf. He was promised that he would see the Messiah. When he say YAHshua he took Him up in his arms and prophesied, "YAHWEH, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,"

Now YAHshua lived in Nazareth which was of Galilee, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali, when he went to the other side of the Jordan to be baptized by John. The Holy Spirit descended upon Him and He was driven into the wilderness to be tested by the Devil.

YAHshua is the branch (nezer) Who is the rising light (na zarach) dwelling in Nazareth. Through the conception of the Holy Spirit, He has taken up habitation (Zebulon) in the flesh (Jn. 1:14, Phil. 2:5-8). Galilee is where YAHWEH begins to open the door (the valve) in order to eventually bring Israel and Judah back into His fold (completing the circle). YAHshua goes to the Jordan (descender, fall, bring down) to be baptized/immersed (descend) into the waters so that He may receive another portion of the Holy Spirit which descends (Jordan) upon Him. He is driven into the wilderness where He wrestles (Naphtali) with the Devil, overcoming him. He returns to Nazarath as the Branch (nezer/nazar) who has now risen (zarach) as a great light to lighten the nations. He enters into the Synagogue declaring that He is the Messiah from the book of Isaiah (Lk. 4:17-20) Once He has risen (zarach) as the great light He moves from Nazareth to Capernaum (Mat. 4:13). Capernaum is a combination of two Hebrew words "kopher" and "nachum." Kopher has to do with the covering of the atonement sacrifice and nachum has to do with the Comforter (the Holy Spirit). The great light has risen and the work of the atoning spirit has begun in earnest, thus YAHshua proclaimed, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Mt. 4:17).

Jon, you have established yourself as a "CRITIC" of YAHWEH'S word rather than a student. You have not had the spiritual understanding required to teach people the truths of YAHWEH. I have utterly destroyed your point #3 through the Spirit and Scripture. I expect you to blot this point out of your criticism before your name is blotted out of the book of life. If I were you, I would withdraw from any speaking lists or position of leadership in the assembly so that you may be counted as a sheep and not a goat.

Point #4
We read in Matthew 2:18 that the murder of the Israelite boys under the age of two was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 in which Rachel wept for her children. So, let us examine Jeremiah 31 and Matthew 2:18 to find out the truth.

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Now, we have a problem. The prophecy in Jeremiah 31 reads as follows. (Please keep in mind that what we are reading in Jeremiah are the direct words of Yahweh.)

Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of Yahweh, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. 11 For Yahweh hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. 12 Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of Yahweh, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all. 13 Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow. 14 And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith Yahweh. 15 Thus saith Yahweh; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. 16 Thus saith Yahweh; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith Yahweh; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. 17 And there is hope in thine end, saith Yahweh, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

In Jeremiah, Yahweh speaks and comforts Rachel saying that her children would return to their own country. The context of the story relates to the captivity and return from captivity. The writer of Matthew 2:18 makes the claim that the DEATH of the Israelite children was the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31. How do dead children come back to their own country causing their mothers not to grieve? Why does Matthew have absolutely NOTHING to do say about the part of the prophecy dealing with scattering Israel into captivity?

COMMENT: Just what is the ultimate captivity? Isn’t it the grave and death? How do children come back to their mothers in this instance? Notice that the prophecy is speaking of Rachel who is also dead at the time that the prophecy is spoken and written. How can Rachel rejoice unless she is delivered from the grave? After all, isn’t that what our faith in the New Covenant is all about? Isn’t it the hope of the resurrection from the dead and the receiving of eternal life?

Why does Matthew have absolutely nothing to say about the part of the prophecy dealing with scattering Israel into captivity? The reason is that this prophecy is taken out of context to reveal that it applies to the Messiah as all of the New Testament Scriptures which are taken out of the Old Testament are taken out of context to show that they apply to the Messiah. This is simple spiritual logic.

How is this going to be accomplished? Isn’t it through YAHshua the Messiah?

Now notice verse 11, "For YAHWEH hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he." This is something that is spoken of as having already been done, but YAHshua hadn’t even been born in the flesh yet. So in verse 10 we have the situation where He has (scattered Israel) and He will (gather them again). Verse 11 says He has when He hasn’t yet done it. Verse 12 again presents it as He will for it says, "They shall come." Verses 13 and 14 reveal that they also are yet future, but in verse 15, there is another digression where Rachel is lamenting and bitterly weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted because they were not.

This goes hand in hand with the prophecy in wherein YAHWEH designates Israel as "Lo-ammi" (not my people). This is one reason why Rachel is lamenting and bitterly weeping for her children Israel, the northern kingdom Israel whose leadership was Ephraim, were no longer called YAHWEH'S people. She will continue to weep and lament, refusing to be comforted until her children are returned to her. This condition exists until this day.

It is also revealed that the children of Benjamin remained with the southern kingdom of Judah. Paul was a Benjamite. Benjamin was a child of Rachel and it is possible that the majority of the children slain by Herod were Benjamite children which would fulfill the prophecy of Jer. 31:15. Prophecy is abstract in its make-up. Most minds cannot comprehend it until it comes to pass. Obviously, when you say, "We have a problem here," it is you who have the problem in understanding Scripture and its applications.

Additionally, there is absolutely no mention of any such murder of young children by Herod in the Roman or other secular history. Note that the Romans kept very accurate records and an action of this sort would have attracted the attention of the historians.

COMMENT: But there is a Biblical account found in the book of Matthew chapter 2. So again, we must have sight and not faith. Since there are no Roman records to preserve the event, but the Scriptures, which are written for our admonition, do contain the event, we are to disbelieve the Scriptures? Did the Romans, in their secular records, write of the death of YAHshua. Did they write of His resurrection? Can we find such records? In Scripture, but I have never seen any Roman records as such.

In my opinion, Matthew 2:16-18 is but another example of the additions to the book of Matthew by someone other than the original writer.

COMMENT: Your opinion vs. the opinion of the writers of Matthew and Luke who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who lived during those days. Who is to be believed? I choose to believe the Bible, how about you?

I have already proven under your point #1 that Mat. 1 & 2 have always been a part of the Scriptures whether Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin. Please produce the manuscripts that you have discovered which leave these accounts out in order to substantiate your claim, or delete point #4 from your FACTS as it is speculation and not reality. You want proof and documentation from us, which we give, while you will only accept you own speculation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines something that is speculative as something that theoretical, not practical; uncertain; risky.

Point #5
Matthew 2:13-15 refers back to a prophecy in Hosea 11, or does it?

In examining the context of Hosea 11:1 we find it speaking of Israel. Matthew 2:15 simply has nothing whatever to do with Yahshua. In my opinion, nothing could possibly be clearer. Context doesn’t seem to matter to the author of Matthew 2:15.

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of Yahweh appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of Yahweh by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. 3 I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. 4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them. 5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return. 6 And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels. 7 And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him. 8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am Elohim, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. 10 They shall walk after YAHWEH: he shall roar like a lion: when he shall roar, then the children shall tremble from the west. 11 They shall tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of Assyria: and I will place them in their houses, saith YAHWEH.

COMMENT: Again, opinion! Paul writes, "Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." (1 Cor. 10:11) The things that happened to Israel and were written for Israel were for an example for us. These are all types which the New Testament writers are trying to get over to us. When Israel was called out of Egypt and delivered by the hand of Moses, that was a type for us upon whom the end of the ages have come. YAHshua was one like unto Moses (Acts 3:22), or better yet, Moses was a forerunner and type of YAHshua the true Moses who has been raised up to deliver us out of the present evil world. This world is likened to Egypt. The type is only a dim picture of a greater event that is presently taking place and will culminate in the future. Thus, YAHWEH began our call out of Egypt by calling His own Son YAHshua, Who was like unto Moses (Acts 3:19-23), out of Egypt. Again, the writers of the New Testament Scriptures wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and you are found resisting the Spirit.

YAHshua is the true Israel and those who are in Him are also Israel as Paul writes, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, ‘In Isaac shall thy seed be called," Ro. 9:6-7. Previously, Paul wrote, "I say the truth in the Messiah, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from the Messiah for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh...That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of YAHWEH: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed," Ro. 9:1-3, 8.

Paul establishes that even though one is Israelite born (in the flesh), they still are not Israel until they are in the Messiah, as He wrote in Ro. 8:5-10, "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against YAHWEH: for it is not subject to the law of YAHWEH neither indeed can be. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of YAHWEH dwell in you. Now if any have not the Spirit of the Messiah, he is none of His."

Take note, Jon. By your own admission, you claim that this is speaking of Israel. The situation is that the true Israel is YAHshua and those who are His. Those of the flesh are not Israel because they were not able to be subject to the law. Thus, this prophecy HAD TO BE ABOUT YAHSHUA AND THOSE WHO ARE HIS, for Israel after the flesh is not the true Israel, they are just examples to us upon whom the end of the ages have come.

Point #6
In Matthew 2 we read that Herod was trying to figure out where the Messiah was going to be born so that he would know where to look in order to kill the Messiah. The writer of Matthew, Chapter 2 has the fulfillment of Micah 5 occurring nearly two thousand years ago. However, from the context of Micah, Chapter 5, it appears that the prophecy was to be fulfilled at the same time as when the swords would be beaten into plowshares, and spears into pruninghooks. Micah mentions that "nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

I do not know a single person who believes the prophecy about the swords into plowshares to be something that has already occurred. I certainly don’t know anyone who holds that it occurred two thousand years ago. Yet, the writer of Matthew, Chapter 2 has it occurring nearly two thousand years ago.

Matthew 2:1 Now when Yahshua was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where the Messiah should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Micah 4: 1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, and to the house of the Elohim of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. 3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of Yahweh of hosts hath spoken it. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his Elohim, and we will walk in the name of Yahweh our Elohim for ever and ever. 6 In that day, saith Yahweh, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; 7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and Yahweh shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. 8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem. 9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. 10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there Yahweh shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. 11 Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. 12 But they know not the thoughts of Yahweh, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor. 13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto Yahweh, and their substance unto the Sovereign of the whole earth.

Micah 5:1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. 2 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.

COMMENT: Jon, why do you go so far ahead to verse one of Michah 4 and then conveniently stop at verse 2 of Micah 5? The reason has to be that if you read any further your point will be destroyed. Continuing in Micah 5:3 "Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel." Micah 5 2-3 is speaking of the Ruler Who will be brought forth to rule Israel and give her the peace and power that she has sought after. Now, either you believe that this Ruler is YAHshua, or you don’t. In your case and according to your point, you must not believe that He is. Again, the Scripture is quoted to prove that YAHshua is the One Who will be the ruler in Israel. Read all of the prophets. Time and time again they repeat over and over the sin, demise and destruction of Israel and then their recovery by the hand of YAHWEH. They go back and forth from past to future, back to past and then to future again. As stated before, this is rather abstract, but serves the purpose to keep minds blinded to YAHWEH'S purpose, and yet, still proclaiming what He had done, is doing and will do. Micah is simply writing in the same manner here.

Point #7
Matthew 1:23 claims to be the fulfillment of Isaiah 7. Let’s examine whether that claim is so. To summarize the situation, at the time of King Ahaz, the Nation of Israel was split into two Kingdoms. King Ahaz was King over Judah, the House of David with the capital city of Jerusalem. Pekah, the King of Israel made a confederacy between Israel and King Rezin of Syria. Together, their plan was to crush King Ahaz and set up their own King over Judah. King Ahaz was frightened over this new situation. Yahweh sent the Prophet Isaiah to calm King Ahaz. Isaiah relayed Yahweh's words to Ahaz. He told him that within 65 years, Ephraim and her King Pekah would be no more. Yahweh gave Ahaz a sign that what He said was true.

The sign was that a young woman would bear a son. His name would be Emmanuel, which has the meaning that "Elohim is with us". Please pay special attention to verse 16. "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

To summarize, the writer of Matthew 1:23 made several claims. Chiefly, he claimed that a virgin would be with child. She would name the child "Emmanuel". And, He would save His People from their sins.

The problem is that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 has nothing whatever to do with saving people from their sins. The Hebrew word for sexual virgin (Bethulah) was NOT used. Instead, the word Almah was used. It means "young woman of marriageable age". An Almah could indeed be a Bethulah. However, not all Almah’s were sexual virgins.

COMMENT: Let’s look at the definition for "almah". It is #5959 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as; a lass (as veiled or private). It has been translated as; damsel, maid and virgin. The word "damsel," according to Webster’s New World Dictionary is defined as, [Archaic or Poetic] a girl; maiden. Maid is defined as; 1 a) a girl or young unmarried woman b) a virgin. We don’t have to go into the definition of a virgin. But let’s continue on this search. Almah is shown to be feminine of #5958 which is the Hebrew word "elem" defined as; properly, something kept out of sight (compare 5959), i.e. a lad. Both of these words stem from another Hebrew word "alam" which is defined as; a primitive root; to veil from sight, i.e. conceal (literally or figuratively).

The use of this word in the Torah only has to do with virgins. For example, Gen. 24:43, "Behold, I stand by the well of water: and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (almah) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, ‘Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;’ 44. and she say to me, ‘Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels:’ let the same be the woman whom YAHWEH hath appointed out for my master’s son.’ 45. And before I had done speaking in mine heart, behold, Rebekah came forth with her pitcher on her shoulder; and she went down unto the well, and drew water."

Was Abraham’s servant just looking for any female or was he looking for an unmarried maiden, damsel, lass, virgin (almah) for his master’s son? Did YAHWEH want just any female for Isaac or did he desire a maiden, damsel, lass, virgin (almah) for Isaac?

Isa. 7:14 was a special sign given to them in that day and age. What kind of special sign is it when a young woman has sexual relations with a man and conceives? That is the natural way of things, so for a young woman to conceive a child after having relations with a man is no special sign. It still happens today. This young woman was an "almah", a virgin who conceived without having relations with a man. This sign would be special, notable and one from YAHWEH Himself.

Please refer to the "http://www.flash.net/~jfra/translations.htm" of Isaiah 7:14.

Another problem for the writer of Matthew 1:23 is that Yahshua was NEVER called Emmanuel. It isn’t recorded that His parents named Him that. They never referred to Him as Emmanuel. In fact, the writer of Matthew 1 contradicts himself in verse 21 where he specifically says that the Angel of Yahweh told Miriam to name Him "Yahshua". Luke 2:21 confirms the naming of the child as "Yahshua". Now, if an Angel of Yahweh came down and told the parents to name the baby "Emmanuel", why is it that Joseph and Miriam didn’t follow that command? By which name only can we be saved? Yahshua, Emmanuel, Wonderful counselor... Which is it?

COMMENT: The name of the Messiah is YAHshua, but by those who really know Him, He was Elohim in the flesh, thus the title Emmanuel would apply because El was with His people (Jn. 1:1-4, 14).

In Rev. 21:3 the statement is made, "Behold, the tabernacle of Elohim is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and YAHWEH Himself shall be with them and be their Elohim." How is this condition brought about? Isn’t it brought out through YAHshua the Messiah? "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to Hid good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather in one all things in the Messiah, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him."

Jon, doesn’t the title "Emmanuel" apply to Rev. 21:3. Doesn’t Emmanuel mean "Elohim is with His people?" By your own words you believe that this is true. Thus, the title "Emmanuel" belongs to YAHshua the Messiah because He is the One through Whom this is accomplished. That applied to Him in the day that He appeared in the flesh, it still applies to Him today for those who possess His Spirit, and it will apply to the world tomorrow then all things are accomplished. This is all according to Scripture!

Again, my belief is that the writer of Matthew Chapters 1 & 2 was not the writer of the book beginning in Chapter three.

COMMENT: Again, Jon, you have established yourself as a critic. A critic must be critical, question and doubt. Faith is therefore destroyed. According to your belief (faith) be it unto you.

Point #8
In Matthew 2:1 we learn that "Wise men from the East" are aware of a sign as to the coming of the Messiah. What is that sign? They believe that they have seen "His star in the east, and are come to worship Him." How many signs were to be given concerning the identity of the Messiah? And, how did these so called "Wise Men" know about the sign? Once again, it is my conviction that the writer of Matthew Chapters 1 & 2 broke Yahweh's Law in Deut. 12:32.

COMMENT: Then is John 1:33 also in error and must be cast out of NT Scripture? John witnesses, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He That sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, ‘Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit‘."

Were the disciples also in error when it is written, "This beginning of miracles did YAHshua in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed on Him."? Did they jump the gun and add to the Scriptures because they believed in the signs and miracles that YAHshua did before the sign of Jonah was manifested?

Peter declared that YAHshua was the Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim, before YAHshua's death, burial and resurrection (the sign of Jonah). Was Peter adding to Scripture when he should not have been?

What about the declaration of the angel in Luke 2:2:11, "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is the Messiah, the Sovereign."

Was the angel guilty of adding to Scripture declaring that YAHshua was the Messiah before His death, burial and resurrection?

Point #8 is senseless. New Testament Scripture reveals that many signs and wonders were performed which caused people to believe that YAHshua was the Messiah from before His birth, during His birth and during His ministry. YAHshua declared to the EVIL UNBELIEVING PEOPLE OF HIS DAY that the only sign that He would give them was the sign of Jonah, because they witnessed the mighty signs, miracles and wonders that He performed and still disbelieved. The sign of Jonah was the final sign to them, which they still wouldn’t believe even after it was given. They compounded their sins and disbelief by contradicting and confusing the truth about the resurrection so that the great preponderance of their people still disbelieve to this day.

Point #9
I mentioned in Point #8 about the signs of the identity of the Messiah. According to Matthew 12:39, there was to be only one sign (the sign of Jonah) as to who was the Messiah. So far, belief in the Virgin Birth Theory requires a belief in at least two additional signs OTHER than the three days and nights in the grave preceding the resurrection.

COMMENT: The sign given to the kings of the east was evidently given to non-Hebrews. The Heavenly Father wanted to declare the birth of His only begotten Son which He did do to the kings of the east and also the shepherds who were tending the flocks. Any father likes to declare the birth of his child. Would you deny Him this privilege? YAHshua was speaking to the disbelieving people of His day who were seeking signs from Him and He told them that He would give them no sign, but for the sign of Jonah. The signs, miracles and wonders that He performed in the presence others, even non Hebrews, caused them to believe that He was the Messiah before He gave the sign of Jonah.

Who did YAHshua say He would give the sign of Jonah to? "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, ‘Master, we would see a sign from Thee.’ But He answered and said unto them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah." Mt. 12:38-39.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, YAHshua stated that if the Pharisees wouldn’t hear Moses and the prophets, then they wouldn’t believe even if one rose from the dead (Lk. 16:31). True enough, YAHshua resurrected one named Lazarus after he had been dead for four days. Did this convince the scribes and Pharisees that YAHshua was the Messiah? Absolutely not. They conspired together with the chief priests on how to put YAHshua to death (Jn. 11:53, 57) and also Lazarus (Jn. 12:10-11).

As stated above, those who received Him because of the signs, miracles and wonders given before, during and after His birth and during His ministry knew that He was the Messiah. Read Jn. 4:25, 29, 42; Jn. 6:69, 7:26, 41; 11:27; Mt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 4:41.

Point #10
There are several points that deal with Yahweh keeping His own Law. I believe that Yahweh's Law is perfect. I also believe that He keeps His own Law. The first point has to do with committing adultery. Yahweh's Law shows that a man who takes another man’s wife (or betrothed wife) has committed adultery. The punishment for such an offense is a serious one. The penalty is death. I do not believe that Yahweh impregnated Miriam supernaturally to produce Yahshua. Simply put, I believe it would have been a wrong done to Joseph. Joseph as the groom to be of Miriam was the only one with the right to impregnate his future wife and that, only after the marriage.

COMMENT: YAHWEH didn’t have sexual relations with Miriam. He caused YAHshua to be conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are YAHWEH'S creation. We belong to Him. He can do anything with us that He chooses. If He wants to kill us, He has the right and power to do so. If He wants to make us alive, He has every right to do so. YAHWEH says, "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no elohim with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal! Neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand," Dt. 32:39. Your assumption reveals that you do not understand the power of YAHWEH. He commands us, "Thou shalt not kill." But He says that He kills. Why would He command us not to do something that He can do? Because He can make alive, but we can’t. Thus, what about Miriam’s case? He can do what we cannot do. He can form His special creation, His own child in the womb of a virgin. That child can be her firstborn, and He can heal her womb so that she remains a virgin for her husband. If you cannot understand this concept then you cannot understand the power YAHWEH has to heal.

Concerning the Sabbath command. YAHshua said, "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is One greater than the temple," Mt. 12:5-6. When YAHshua was accused of breaking the Sabbath, He said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," Jn. 5:17. YAHWEH created the Sabbath day and He can work on it if He so desires and He does according to YAHshua. He created the Sabbath for man.

YAHWEH says, "I form the light (a symbol for righteousness) and create darkness (a symbol for evil): I make peace, and create evil: I YAHWEH do all these things," Isa. 45:7. If He wants to bring evil upon us, He has every right to do so. If He wants to bring good upon us, He has every right to do so. Miriam was given a choice and she chose to be the vessel of YAHWEH. Joseph had a choice, but when the truth was revealed, He accepted it without any harm or resentment. Therefore, why do you question YAHWEH and those who were willing to accept His will?

You, in your folly, are attempting to make YAHWEH into the image of a man.

"However, the real emphasis, is upon the miraculous conception of [Yahshua]. There was no human father. He was the Child of [YAHWEH]. The new creative act of [YAHWEH] is seen in His bringing His Son into the world.

"One must not look upon this in a crude materialistic way. There is no thought of sexual relations between [YAHWEH] and Mary, an idea which can be found in some pagan religions where the deities were thought of as engaging in such practices. Rather, [YAHWEH] worked in a hidden, secret way which is beyond our ability to understand or explain." (Holman Bible Dictionary, p. 1395)

"The virgin Birth means that [YAHshua the Messiah] entered into the stream of human life without the mediation of an earthly father, born not as a result of sexual intercourse but as a result of supernatural ‘overshadowing.’ To view the Holy Spirit as a male substitute, a sort of apotheosized husband, as Karl Barth puts it, is to miss the central point of this immaterial conception. There was no union, no impregnation; any idea of such a relationship between Creator and creature was quite literally unthinkable to the Jewish mind. Justin Martyr has therefore admirably expressed the Biblical teaching in his comment on Isaiah 7:14, ‘The words, ‘Behold the virgin shall conceive,’ signify that the conceived without intercourse; for if she had intercourse with anyone whatever, she would no longer be a virgin. But the power of [YAHWEH] coming upon the virgin overshadowed her and caused her to conceive though she was a virgin...Accordingly, the Spirit and power which was from [YAHWEH] must be understood as nothing else than the Logos, who also is the firstborn of [YAHWEH], as Moses the aforementioned prophet declared; and this coming upon the virgin and overshadowing her, caused her to be with child not by intercourse but by power’ )quoted by Machen, The Virgin Birth of Chr-st, p. 334).

Form a strictly theological perspective, the Virgin Birth has weighty significance. For one thing, it attests to the omnipotent grace and creative freedom of [YAHWEH] as He inaugurates a new order of redemption by a miracle pure and simple, a miracle which breaks in upon and shatters the old order of sin." (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, pp. 882-3)

Point #11
We are Yahweh's children. He is our Father. What is it called when a Father has sexual relations with one of his children? It is called incest and it is forbidden in Yahweh's Law. Again, I believe that Yahweh doesn’t break His own Law.

COMMENT: Surely, what you are implying on a physical level between father and daughter is correct, but YAHWEH is our spiritual Father and He has a spiritual plan. He has chosen to work His spiritual plan out in His own way. Why do you question, disbelieve and accuse the Righteous One with physical corruption? Nothing is spoken about sexual relationship, again, it was a conception brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by physical sexual intercourse. Your reasonings reveal that you do not understand the Holy Spirit, but can only deal with the physical world.

The concept of mating with ones own kind is made abundantly clear in Genesis, Chapter one. Yahweh repeated the model for mating within ones own kind over and over again. He specifically mentioned the great whales, winged fowl, cattle, vultures, ravens, the different varieties of owls and the night hawk. He mentioned the plants that are to reproduce after their own kind. He even mentioned the grasshopper mating after its own kind.

So, why would it be any different with humans? Of course, Yahweh's Law prescribes that we mate with our own kind.

Additionally, Yahshua proclaimed, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." It is clear that spirit beings do not mate with fleshly beings. That concept is a pagan concept and is found in every pagan religion. The "gods" of the pagan world are constantly having sexual relations with human females. It is one of the most common pagan religious themes.

COMMENT: How then can we who are physical, possess the Holy Spirit since we are physical and the Holy Spirit is Spirit? YAHWEH made man in His own image after His own likeness. Have you not read such? By the way, when He says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit," the word "born" actually comes from the Greek word "gennao" which means, to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate. We who are men procreate flesh since we are flesh, but YAHWEH is Spirit so He procreates Spirit. He had to begin His spiritual procreation somewhere and the beginning of that procreation is with YAHshua. YAHshua was a unique individual because He was procreate by the Father through the Holy Spirit in the womb of the physical fleshly virgin Miriam. Thus, He was His only begotten (procreated) Son and through Him He could many spiritual sons and daughters. If you disbelieve this, then you have never understood the great truth that the Scriptures speak of.

I find that YAHshua's words apply here, "You do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of YAHWEH," Mt. 22:29.

Point #12
Mary refers to Joseph as Yahshua's father in Luke 2:48. Was she wrong?

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Yahshua's parents are well known in Luke 2:41.

Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

COMMENT: What is the great mystery here? People who adopt children become their parents. A step-father or step-mother is considered by many, many children to be their parents.

But what was YAHshua's reply to His mother? "How is it that ye sought Me? Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?" (v. 49) Who is He speaking of here? Joseph or YAHWEH? If Joseph were His true Father then He would have been on the road back to the family business with Joseph the carpenter. His answer reveals that He knew Who His true Father was, but your point reveals that you fall into the category of Joseph and Miriam for it says, "And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them," v. 50.

We need to examine another point concerning the parents of Yahshua in Luke 2:9-12. Please notice that the Angel of Yahweh came to both parents. And, the angel addressed BOTH parents when he said, "For unto YOU is born this day…"

Luke 2:9 And, lo, the angel of Yahweh came upon them, and the glory of Yahweh shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is the Anointed, the Master. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Again, the context clearly shows that the Angel of Yahweh was speaking to BOTH parents. Was the Angel of Yahweh wrong?

COMMENT: Why are you leaving out the most important Scriptures here? Verse 8 says that there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. v. 9 And, lo, the angel of YAHWEH came upon them, and the glory of YAHWEH shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. v. 10 And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. v. 11. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is the anointed YAHWEH."

Point #13
Phillip refers to Joseph as Yahshua's father in John 1:45. Was he wrong?

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Yahshua of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

The Jews referred to Yahshua as being the son of Joseph in John 6:42. Were they wrong? Please note that if they were wrong, Yahshua certainly did not correct them.

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Yahshua, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Luke gives the genealogy of Yahshua as going through Joseph in Luke 3:23. Was he wrong?

Luke 3:23 And Yahshua himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

COMMENT: In Mat. 3:17 a voice from heaven proclaims, "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. In Mk. 1:11 as well as Lk. 3:22 the voice from heaven proclaims, "Thou art My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." Do you now believe that Joseph died and went to heaven? In Mk. 5:7 and Lk. 8:28 the legion of demons recognized YAHshua as the Son of the Most High Elohim. In Mat. 8:29 the devils recognize Him as the Son of Elohim. In Mk. 3:11 the unclean spirits recognize Him as the Son of Elohim. In Lk. 4:41 the devils recognize Him as the Messiah, the son of Elohim. The angel Gabriel proclaimed that He would be called the Son of the Highest and the Son of Elohim (Lk. 1:32, 35.) In Jn. 1:34, John the Baptist witnesses, "And I saw, and bare record that This is the Son of Elohim." Nathaniel witnesses,, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of Elohim; Thou art the King of Israel," Jn. 1:49. Peter witnesses, "Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim," Mt. 16:16. The disciples (who later became the apostles) witnessed, "Of a truth Thou art the Son of Elohim," Mt. 4:33. Paul declares Him the Son of Elohim (Ro. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20; 4:13; etc.) YAHshua, Himself, witnesses that He is the Son of Elohim (Jn. 3:16-18). The Centurion witnesses that He was the Son of Elohim (Mt. 27:54; Mk. 15:39). Look at the great cloud of witnesses, Jon. There is John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, the apostles, the angel Gabriel, the Heavenly Father, YAHshua, devils, demons and unclean spirits who all witnesses that YAHshua is the Son of Elohim, the Son of the Father, the Son of the Most High, the Son of the Living Elohim. Just how many witnesses are required by the Torah to establish a thing? Isn’t it two or three? How is it that you can’t believe this great cloud of witnesses!!!?

Again and again you resist the Spirit of YAHWEH in this matter. Joseph was the step-father of YAHshua as you very well know by the Scriptures given, however, Joseph’s genealogy is given to reveal that Joseph and Miriam are both descendants of David and YAHshua, therefore, has the proper claim to David’s throne.

Notice YAHshua's own word in the Scriptures that you utilized, "I came down from heaven." Do you not believe the words of the Messiah? Both Moses and Peter warned that if we fail to listen to this Prophet, we would be destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:22-23; Dt. 18:15-22). You are falling into the same category with the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees of His day. You are in danger of being destroyed, Jon. Please don’t let it happen.

Luke, in Chapter 7, Verse 42 makes the claim that the Messiah was to be born "…of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem…". If, in fact, Joseph wasn’t Yahshua's (literal, earthly, human) father, then how would it be so that Yahshua was "of the seed of David"?

COMMENT: See previous comment and Num. 27:1 again.

In the book of Romans, Paul made it very clear that he believed Yahshua was in fact born "of the seed of David". He even goes on to specify "according to the flesh". If Paul meant to say the Yahshua was born "according to the Spirit", why did he say, "according to the flesh"? If Paul meant to convey the thought that Yahshua was a direct descendant of King David, how else would he have said it if not than to say exactly what he did?

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Yahshua the Messiah our Sovereign, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

COMMENT: Again, it isn’t difficult to understand that David was flesh and YAHshua inherited His physical fleshly throne through His mother Miriam and His step-father, Joseph. This has to be in order to fulfill all of the will and purpose of YAHWEH. Why can you not accept it? Look again at what Paul wrote elsewhere, "But when the fulness of the time was come, YAHWEH sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The word "made" comes from the Greek word genomai which is defined as; a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.) Notice that, Jon, generated, by a woman, not a man. Why didn’t Paul include Joseph here? After all, we who are the descendants of Adam and Eve are generated by man and woman, father and mother, but Joseph, the man is excluded, because YAHWEH was going to regenerate us as His children through YAHshua. Too bad you don’t believe this.

The line of King David continued on through Joseph. Yet, the reality is that people don’t believe that Joseph was Yahshua's literal father. How, then, was Yahshua born "of the seed of David"?

Additionally, there are multiple verses that refer to Yahshua as the "Son of David". Let’s quote a few.

Matthew 20:30 And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Yahshua passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Master, thou son of David. 31 And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Master, thou son of David.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and Yahweh Elohim shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

COMMENT: Yes, halleluYAH! Because it is through Him that the heavenly throne and the earthly throne can be brought together in one. Thus, YAHshua had to partake in the Spirit and the flesh. Therefore He was called the son of Man and the Son of Elohim. Now He can sit on the throne in heaven and the one on earth.

Point #14
By my count, there are 84 verses in the Newer Writings that refer to Yahshua as the "Son of Man". So, are these verses wrong? Was Yahshua the "Son of Man" or wasn’t he? Let’s examine a few of these verses.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Luke 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is master also of the sabbath. Luke 11:30 For as Jonas was a sing unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

If the term "Son of man" doesn't mean "Son of man", what does it mean?

COMMENT: Son of man would be translated as Ben haAdam. YAHshua, through Miriam, was also traced back to Adam who, in turn, was Ben haElohim. YAHshua was both man and Elohim, believe it or not. It is through Him that both heaven and earth are able to be brought together in one (Eph. 1:10). He had to take part in both the Spirit and the flesh in order to perform this duty.

You left out the Scriptures where He is called the Son of Elohim, Jon. Why did you do that? He is also called the Son of Elohim or the Highest or the Father in at least 48 verses of the New Testament. You are denying that the Son of Elohim came in the flesh which is an anti-Messiah message! (1 Jn. 4:1-3; 2 Jn. 7).

Point #15
Yahshua refers to himself as the Son of Man. Was He wrong?

Matthew 16:13 When Yahshua came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Anointed, the Son of the living Elohim. 17 And Yahshua answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

COMMENT: No, He wasn’t wrong. He was Ben ha Adam in over 80 Scriptures, as you previously pointed out and Ben haElohim in over 40 Scriptures as I pointed out. See comments on Point #13.

Point #16
It was as a result of the resurrection and because of the resurrection alone that Yahshua was referred to as the Son of Yahweh.

In Romans 1:4 says He was, "declared to be the Son of Yahweh with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." This word "by" is understood to also mean "because of" or "through".

COMMENT: Not according to Scripture. He is called the only begotten son of the Father YAHWEH in Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16-18; Jn. 5:19-26 1 Jn. 4:9.

He calls Himself the Son of Elohim and also the Son of Man in Jn. 5:19-27. This is before His death, burial and resurrection. If you can’t believe this, then you might as well toss out the Scriptures, because this is their theme throughout.

Point #16 is destroyed. You only have 5 points remaining.

Point #17
I Thessalonians 5:22 says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Does this concept apply to the parents of Yahshua? If it were true that Miriam conceived a child by someone other than the man to whom she was betrothed, she would have put the child under the Law as listed in Deuteronomy 23:2, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of Yahweh."

Read what would have happened to Miriam in the case above mentioned. Deuteronomy 22:23 & 24, "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

We need to avoid the very appearance of evil. How much more so for Yahshua and his birth.

COMMENT: So the truth comes out! The teachings of the New Testament appear to be evil to you! You call the Savior a bastard! Joseph thought such also (Mt. 1:18-19) until he was informed that what was really in Miriam’s womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit. She had had no sexual relations with a man. It is too bad that you cannot understand and believe the Scriptures and what they say about YAHshua. You are blaspheming the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit when you allude to this situation in the only way that you can understand and that is with the physical mind of a brute beast! (Jude 10)

It seems to me that the writer of Matthew 1 & 2 makes Yahshua and his birth look less than immaculate.

COMMENT: There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Prov. 14:12; 16:25)

Please consider that Yahshua's enemies brought up many charges against him. Not once, however, did they accuse his mother of giving birth out of wedlock. They most certainly would have leveled the charge if they had ANY reason to suspect it. The lack of accusation from them, is, to me, evidence that it didn’t occur.

There is one implication that they thought that He was born of fornication in Jn. 8:41 where YAHshua had accused them of being children of the devil and doing the deeds of their father (the devil). They responded, "We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even Elohim."

The veiled language of the Talmud supports that it was taught by the Jewish Rabbis that YAHshua was born of fornication (Sanhedrin 67a; 106b; Aboda Zarah 17a).

Point #18
Some believers in the Virgin Birth say that, "Well, Yahweh works in mysterious ways..." They say, "If Yahweh "wanted to" He is "able to". Thus, eliminating any question whatsoever in their mind as to the authenticity of the two chapters. It is a "catch all problem eliminator." To me, it is not sufficient to sweep these glaring problems under the dusty carpet.

COMMENT: You don’t believe that YAHWEH works in mysterious ways? You don’t think that He hides a matter from the eyes and understanding of man until it serves His purpose to reveal it? Prov. 25:2 declares, "It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." YAHshua came speaking in parables which kept the understanding locked up to all except those to whom He revealed them (Mt. 13:10-17). Paul wrote that the apostles spoke in mysteries that those with the wisdom of YAHWEH could understand, but those with the wisdom of the world could not (1 Cor. 1:17-24; 2:7-10).

Another "catch all problem eliminator" is the "Dual Prophecy" theory. Again, I would ask for a Biblical example to give justification for using "Dual Proph