Comments on: Why I Deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus

By: Student of the Word

Student of the Word — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:11:11 +0000

@bob:

You try to make yourself sound intelligent by saying that (1): “the early roman Church manipulated the text and added the account of the Virgin Birth, it does not occur in the Hebrew copies of Matthew” and (2):”I would suggest that you learn about the Hebrew Yehshua, instead of this ‘Jesus’ person…” However, both statements were obviously made in ignorance, considering that you got your basic facts completely wrong.

First of all, Matthew was not written in Hebrew. It was written in Koine Greek–that is, the Greek spread by Alexander the Great during his reign…which was kept by the Roman Empire so that they would not have to try to teach people a new language (since everyone within the empire knew the Greek).

Secondly, the name Yeshua is simply a variant of Yoshua (from where we get Joshua). Iesous was simply the Greek spelling variant of Yeshua/Yoshua (Iesous is what appears for the title of the book of Joshua in the Greek Septuagint, which was in common usage during the first century and several centuries prior). The Latin brought the name Iesous to Iesu and from there, the German started pronouncing the I as a J (which is not so much an error as a difference in sounds of the language) and that J sound carried on into English, hence the name Jesus.

Do your research before you go trying to pretend you’re an expert on something you know nothing about.

By: bob

bob — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:31:10 +0000

You are 100% correct, the early roman Church manipulated the text and added the account of the Virgin Birth, it does not occur in the Hebrew copies of Matthew.

I would suggest that you learn about the Hebrew Yehshua, instead of this “Jesus” person. (Ever wonder why the church gives him a false name and false birthdate?)

Yehshua is the Messiah, do not let the paganism of Churchianity whether in ignorance or not, keep you from the truth!

By: frank

frank — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:57:21 +0000

Abraham? Jesus? Mohamed? THE SEEDS OF OUR DEMISE. Wake up! If I could spell in Aramaic.I would. Open your minds and open your eyes… or vc verca.

By: madderz24

madderz24 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:40:14 +0000

lol well if we believed the world was flat at one point, what makes this any different. The only thing we know is that we don’t know (sounds weird but its true)…. We either try to prove stuff through religion or through science. Both are irrational…we should just accept the fact that we are here and let others believe in whatever they want to believe…..in science or religion…..they’re neither right or wrong

By: b

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0000

Wow, excellent! Loved that article… now if I can only get my family to read it :(

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:45:24 +0000

Since lineages were counted through males in those days, and men often had multiple wives, is it possible that Jesus’ brothers were Joseph’s sons from other wives ? Just throwing that out there since I have very little knowledge on the subject. Someone here might know.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:36:15 +0000

Isn’t that what the catholics call a dogma ? And that is quite a useful tool, I’m sure. No explanation necessary, no questions allowed. “Because we say so!” — case closed.

By: Martin Fallon

Martin Fallon — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:27:46 +0000

Spot on, though when I mentioned that to a bunch of charismatics there was deathly silence, followed by a half-hearted (half-baked rather) ‘explanation’ that the text in question really meant ‘cousin’. Which I believed at the time, until I read that the original Greek version of the same text uses the word ‘adelphos’, which _specifically_ means ‘brother’ (see: ‘When Women were Priests’ by Karen Jo Torjesen for more on the Church’s obsession with female sexuality).
And wasn’t Thomas Didymus also Jesus’ brother?

By: wanor

wanor — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:38:55 +0000

The fact that the majority of the sources from the NT would have been well-versed in OT scripture adds a minor degree of understanding as to why there is a sense of coherence between both texts. Undermining jewish scripture when the prophet whose message you wish to spread is known as “king of the jews” would be a bit pointless no?

By: Custador

Custador — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:07:45 +0000

Okay…. You’re a dick who’s incapable of constructing a coherent sentence or of forming a rational argument. Congrats.

By: solomon

solomon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:22:48 +0000

atheistlove,
Pray that you will not be the 1st person to be thrown to HELL!

By: solomon

solomon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:16:17 +0000

All you Atheists,
Why don’t you all believe what Allah the almighty says.Why you all try to find other reasons just following your imagination blindly.You are all the loosers lot.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:04:14 +0000

As one of my friends said,God is above all logic reasoning and explanation.Virgin Mary is not to be traced by DNA or History searches or anything of that sort.Just ask a priest and he would explain what that really means.Finding answers is good but we have our ‘own’ notions which might be not in confirmation with what Bible preaches in actuality.

By: Joan

Joan — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:40:42 +0000

The Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Jesus.

By: Bea

Bea — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:23:23 +0000

I totally agree! Zeitgeist is one of the best movies out there that argue the actual existence of “Jesus” and how catholicism was a religion composed of Pagan rituals in order to convert the masses back in the day! lol Where do you think all the witch burning originated from???
I totally agree with mary not being a virgin. Even if Mary was a virgin and had an immaculate conception, How can she marry a man and never have any kind of relations with him afterward??? It makes absolutely no sense. It’s unheard of! What? Joseph didn’t have needs?? It’s just so illogical!