Which Navity Story is Correct and Why?

[Dawnofhope]

This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurry off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.

 

[sun rise]

Both have valuable symbolism.

The Christian one I take as not literally having an intact hymen but symbolically meaning that she was pure hearted and unstained by misdeeds.

The Islamic one I take to reflect the pain of childbirth. But along with that, the strong feeling that she was going to bear a special child.

So in a sense, if you add the "Annunciation" to the Christian version, you wind up reasonably close to the Islamic one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurrying off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.

In reality it's obvious they're all false.

In the narratives I think luke is the most poetic.

 

[The Anointed]

Both Matthew and Luke are correct, when we remove the corruptions that were added by the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Both have valuable symbolism.

The Christian one I take as not literally having an intact hymen but symbolically meaning that she was pure hearted and unstained by misdeeds.

The Islamic one I take to reflect the pain of childbirth. But along with that, the strong feeling that she was going to bear a special child.

So in a sense, if you add the "Annunciation" to the Christian version, you wind up reasonably close to the Islamic one.

The stories appear to be at least part allegorical and this approach makes it much easier to reconcile. Fundamentalists become enamoured with the details insisting them to be literally true. If that approach is taken they all appear to contradict each other.

I had omitted the annunciation in Luke 1:26-27 so where they are similar may be much more important than some other details.

Annunciation - Wikipedia

I like your new avatar btw.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurrying off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.

Micah cast his vote toward Matthew and Luke, saying the child will be born in Bethlehem

Isaiah cast his vote that ways as well saying the Vergin shall be with child suggesting it will be a wonderful sign as high as heaven

Jeremiah speaks of the death of the other babies in Bethlehem
and so that's three extra votes

 

[lukethethird]

Which Navity Story is Correct and Why?

One of them is wrong?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Micah cast his vote toward Matthew and Luke, saying the child will be born in Bethlehem

Isaiah cast his vote that ways as well saying the Vergin shall be with child suggesting it will be a wonderful sign as high as heaven and so that's two extra votes

The Gospel of Matthew has arguably more references to the Hebrew Bible than any New Testament book. The authors intent has clearly been to convey Jesus being the expected Messiah and fulfilment of prophecy.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

 

[whirlingmerc]

The Gospel of Matthew has arguably more references to the Hebrew Bible than any New Testament book. The authors intent has clearly been to convey Jesus being the expected Messiah and fulfilment of prophecy.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Yes and the Christian folk singer Michael Card has some interesting things to say about the perspectives of each gospel. The gospels being more 'testimony' than 'biography'

 

[The Anointed]

The Gospel of Matthew has arguably more references to the Hebrew Bible than any New Testament book. The authors intent has clearly been to convey Jesus being the expected Messiah and fulfilment of prophecy.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph ben Jacob who married Mary who was already pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli [Alexander Helios III].

If Jesus had been genetically connected with Joseph the son of Jacob, he would have had no chance of sitting on the throne of his ancestor ‘King David.” As Joseph ben Jacob was a descendant of the cursed ‘Jehoiachin,’ of who the Lord said through Jeremiah 22: 30; “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”

So it is obvious that the authors intent was clearly not to convey Jesus being the expected Messiah.

In fact it is my belief that Mary was married off to Joseph ben Jacob, to hide the fact that he was the grandson of Alexander Helios, who was an heir to the throne of David and who Herod the Great had murdered in 13 B.C., as a threat to his throne.

 

[Vouthon]

The three nativity narratives shouldn't be read as history.

St. Paul and Mark, our earliest sources, evidence no awareness of an extended narrative about Jesus's birth involving Bethlehem and a virginal conception.

That said, one of the few things all three stories agree on is the virginity of Mary. The fact that Matthew and Luke arrived at this, we presume, independently of one another from their sources may suggest that an earlier non-Markan, non-Pauline Christian tradition of a miraculous conception of Christ existed in earliest Christianity.

But the frame narratives of each are clearly apologetical and theological in nature.

Scholars believe Jesus was born in Nazareth. No star of Bethlehem, no shepherds, no Magi, no Massacre of the Innocents as in the New Testament; no talking palm tree or miraculous baby Jesus speaking as in the Qur'an.

These are spiritually edifying reflections on the significance of Christ and his coming, not history in the sense of, say, the crucifixion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph ben Jacob who married Mary who was already pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli [Alexander Helios III].

If Jesus had been genetically connected with Joseph the son of Jacob, he would have had no chance of sitting on the throne of his ancestor ‘King David.” As Joseph ben Jacob was a descendant of the cursed ‘Jehoiachin,’ of who the Lord said through Jeremiah 22: 30; “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”

So it is obvious that the authors intent was clearly not to convey Jesus being the expected Messiah.

In fact it is my belief that Mary was married off to Joseph ben Jacob, to hide the fact that he was the grandson of Alexander Helios, who was an heir to the throne of David and who Herod the Great had murdered in 13 B.C., as a threat to his throne.

We need to make a distinction between the Messiah and His return. Christ fulfilled some but not all Messianic prophecies. I don't think Christ meets the criteria of lineage through King David as this is through the male line. In claiming to be born a virgin through the Gospels of Luke and Matthew such prophecies default to Christ's return.

 

[David T]

This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurrying off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.

Its an archetype form of story so it takes on characteristics that we have no clue about today. In a sense the question is a statement of that. If you turn and say "well your question is confused" there is no easy way to point that out. If there was they wouldnt ask the question in the first place because they would know that.

I used to say there should have been a short bus for me as i got involved into religion long ago. " put david on the short bus he is different" but if they were actually that aware, no short bus would exist or needed, and the faith would be radically different. The reason i think religion tends to be as it is, is because religious folks tend to be pretty normal thus the need for a short bus for ones like me! Generally the metaphysics texts are most certainly not generated by normal folks.

 

[Vouthon]

We need to make a distinction between the Messiah and His return. Christ fulfilled some but not all Messianic prophecies. I don't think Christ meets the criteria of lineage through King David as this is through the male line. In claiming to be born a virgin through the Gospels of Luke and Matthew such prophecies default to Christ's return.

Many scholars think that the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew alma (young girl) might not even have implied an actual virgin, as is commonly supposed.

There certainly doesn't appear to have been any Jewish expectation of a Messiah born in this way.

It seems to have arisen solely in early Christianity. What's odd is that most scholars doubt that there was any hellenistic influence a and yet there is basically no evidence of any Second Temple virgin birth stories.

So no one knows where Matthew and Luke got it from. And the clear differences between them make it improbable that either was derived from the other, or that they shared a common source.

So we have two independent witnesses to the Virgin birth but which totally diverge about almost everything else. As such, I think they both heard about the tradition that had been passed down in respect of a virginal conception and birth, and then wrote their own frame stories based on the scant information.

 

[The Anointed]

We need to make a distinction between the Messiah and His return. Christ fulfilled some but not all Messianic prophecies. I don't think Christ meets the criteria of lineage through King David as this is through the male line. In claiming to be born a virgin through the Gospels of Luke and Matthew such prophecies default to Christ's return.

Once to take away the added corruptions of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, you will find that there is no mention of any so-called virgin birth.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

“The Greek word parthenos (παρθένος) is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah” [Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to Greek in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate’ was translated to English, when the Latin word ‘VIRGO’ was translated to Virgin. For just like the early Greek language, the Latin did not have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN’, their word “Virgo” refers to any young woman of marriageable age, whether or not she had previous sexual relations with a man.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication. To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

As a widow, Anna/Hanna remained in her Parthenia= state of seclusion for 7 years, from the death of her husband in 13 BC, until the birth of Jesus in 6 BC, but this does not mean that she was a virgin. A more accurate rendering of the term “Parthenos” is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner. An unmarried woman with children and no partner, would be a Parthenos.

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including the authors of the Septuigint and Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; were in no way implying that Mary was a virgin when they were forced to use the Greek term ‘Parthenos’ in translating Isiah 7: 14.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

The Good News Bible: Catholic Study Edition: Proverbs 30; 19; translate the Hebrew term “Almah” as woman. “And a man and a woman falling in love.”

The New Revised Standard bible, likewise translates the Hebrew “ALMAH,” as “GIRL.” “The way of a ship on the seas, and the way of a man with a girl.”

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos. "Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England, all translate Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.”

Also The Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon reads, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.”

As these religious bodies all now accept that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin in that famous passage, they must now accept that the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, who were forced to use the Greek term “Parthenos” in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, were in no way implying that the pregnant Mary, was still a virgin.

Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah who is pregnant will bear a son and he will be called immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)

 

[Dawnofhope]

Many scholars think that the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew alma (young girl) might not even have implied an actual virgin, as is commonly supposed.

There certainly doesn't appear to have been any Jewish expectation of a Messiah born in this way.

It seems to have arisen solely in early Christianity. What's odd is that most scholars doubt that there was any hellenistic influence a and yet there is basically no evidence of any Second Temple virgin birth stories.

So no one knows where Matthew and Luke got it from. And the clear differences between them make it improbable that either was derived from the other, or that they shared a common source.

So we have two independent witnesses to the Virgin birth but which totally diverge about almost everything else. As such, I think they both heard about the tradition that had been passed down in respect of a virginal conception and birth, and then wrote their own frame stories based on the scant information.

I've never been greatly impressed by the supposed fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14 and the Jews believe the translation refers to an unmarried young woman rather than a virgin.

Genealogies bore me witless but I understand there are omissions between those in the Septuagint translation and Masoretic text.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

I don't see how anyone can actually witness a virgin birth. Do you? Presumably we have stories passed down through oral traditions whose origins will most likely never be clear.

A belief in the virgin birth for Muslims, Christians and Baha'is appears entirely based on faith in scripture.

 

[The Anointed]

I've never been greatly impressed by the supposed fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14 and the Jews believe the translation refers to an unmarried young woman rather than a virgin.

Genealogies bore me witless but I understand there are omissions between the those in the Septuagint translation and Masoretic text.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

I don't see how anyone can actually witness a virgin birth. Do you? Presumably we have stories passed down through oral traditions whose origins will most likely never be clear.

A belief in the virgin birth for Muslims, Christians and Baha'is appears entirely based on faith in scripture.

In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by King Constantine, Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established.

As to those poor gullible souls who have been deceived by those false teachings and whose heads are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to crack that concrete and let the light of truth shine in.

 

[Deeje]

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

“The Greek word parthenos (παρθένος) is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah” [Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to Greek in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

I don't see how anyone can actually witness a virgin birth. Do you? Presumably we have stories passed down through oral traditions whose origins will most likely never be clear.

A belief in the virgin birth for Muslims, Christians and Baha'is appears entirely based on faith in scripture.

Since the accounts in both Matthew and Luke refer back to Isaiah's prophesy concerning a "maiden" who would give birth, we are assured from Mary herself that she had never had sexual relations with a man so she is perplexed at how she could become pregnant. Gabriel tells her it is by holy spirit that she has become impregnated. So Mary was a virgin, making Isaiah's prophesy true.

In Israel a "maiden" or "young woman" was unmarried and in most cases, a virgin. (perhaps being widowed early, she could still be young but unmarried.) No such mention is made concerning Mary. Her betrothal to Joseph was an assurance of marriage. Joseph and Mary both received assurances from God that these things were from him in order for his Messiah to come into the world....as the son of God.

Why would we doubt God's ability to transfer the lifeforce of his son from heaven into the womb of a woman.
Today we have IVF as a common practice. Humans fertilize an egg artificially and introduce it into a woman's womb which results in a pregnancy. So is it impossible for God to do something like that?

We have a study publication that ties in all the events from all the gospels to tell one story about the Messiah's spiritual journey from the announcement of his birth by the angel Gabriel (who also appeared to Daniel centuries before) to tell Mary that she would have the privilege of becoming his human mother and to assure Joseph that Mary was still a virgin, not pregnant to any man.....and right up to Jesus' return to his Father in heaven. It is told in simple terms so it is easy for even a child to understand the way everything transpired back then.

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[The Anointed]

Since the accounts in both Matthew and Luke refer back to Isaiah's prophesy concerning a "maiden" who would give birth, we are assured from Mary herself that she had never had sexual relations with a man so she is perplexed at how she could become pregnant. Gabriel tells her it is by holy spirit that she has become impregnated. So Mary was a virgin, making Isaiah's prophesy true.

In Israel a "maiden" or "young woman" was unmarried and in most cases, a virgin. (perhaps being widowed early, she could still be young but unmarried.) No such mention is made concerning Mary. Her betrothal to Joseph was an assurance of marriage. Joseph and Mary both received assurances from God that these things were from him in order for his Messiah to come into the world....as the son of God.

Why would we doubt God's ability to transfer the lifeforce of his son from heaven into the womb of a woman.
Today we have IVF as a common practice. Humans fertilize an egg artificially and introduce it into a woman's womb which results in a pregnancy. So is it impossible for God to do something like that?

We have a study publication that ties in all the events from all the gospels to tell one story about the Messiah's spiritual journey from the announcement of his birth by the angel Gabriel (who also appeared to Daniel centuries before) to tell Mary that she would have the privilege of becoming his human mother and to assure Joseph that Mary was still a virgin, not pregnant to any man.....and right up to Jesus' return to his Father in heaven. It is told in simple terms so it is easy for even a child to understand the way everything transpired back then.

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Deeje wrote…….. Since the accounts in both Matthew and Luke refer back to Isaiah's prophesy concerning a "maiden" who would give birth, we are assured from Mary herself that she had never had sexual relations with a man so she is perplexed at how she could become pregnant.

The Anointed……..Luke makes no reference to Isaiah’s prophecy. The angel appeared to the young 13/14 year-old Parthenos ‘Mary, the daughter of Hanna and Alexander Helios/Heli,’ and told her that she would in the future become pregnant and bare a son who would be a genetic descendant of King David. Mary the young Parthenos then denotes that she is still a virgin at that time, by saying that she had never as yet known a man sexually.

Deeje wrote…….. Gabriel tells her it is by holy spirit that she has become impregnated. So Mary was a virgin, making Isaiah's prophesy true.

The Anointed……Mary may have still been a virgin when she spoke with the angel, but three months later, she was no longer a virgin, when she was found to be pregnant to Joseph the son of her father Heli. As revealed by Luke who states that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph the son of Heli.

And it is true that the child of Mary and her half-brother Joseph ben Heli, was conceived according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Isaac the son of Sarah and her half-brother Abraham.

Galatians 4: 29; At that time, the child born according to the flesh [Ishmael] despised and persecuted him, [Isaac] who was born according to God’s promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac, who is the prototype of Jesus, was born of a brother/sister relationship and born of God’s promise according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit, and Isaac was the biological son of Abraham and his half-sister Sarah, who were both sired by Terah, just as Jesus, who was born of God’s promise according to the power of the Holy Spirit, was the biological son of Joseph and his half-sister Mary, who were both sired by Alexander Helios.

No Deeje! Mary was not yet pregnant when she spoke with the messenger of God, and would not fall pregnant until she was united with her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli from Cyprus, who she would meet in the home of her aunty Elizabeth, where many friends and family members had gathered to rejoice with the aged Elizabeth, who herself had just become pregnant for the first time.

Deeje wrote…….. In Israel a "maiden" or "young woman" was unmarried and in most cases, a virgin. (perhaps being widowed early, she could still be young but unmarried.) No such mention is made concerning Mary. Her betrothal to Joseph was an assurance of marriage. Joseph and Mary both received assurances from God that these things were from him in order for his Messiah to come into the world....as the son of God.

The Anointed……… But we know from both Matthew and Luke that Mary was already pregnant to Joseph the son of Heli, when Joseph ben Jacob was told in a dream to take Mary as his wife.

Deeje Wrote…….. Why would we doubt God's ability to transfer the lifeforce of his son from heaven into the womb of a woman.

The Anointed……. Because the scriptures reveal that Jesus was born of the flesh as all humans are, of two human parents, and was later born of the spirit on the day of his baptism, when the spirit of our Lord God and saviour descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee.

Deeje Wrote…….. Today we have IVF as a common practice. Humans fertilize an egg artificially and introduce it into a woman's womb which results in a pregnancy. So is it impossible for God to do something like that?

The Anointed……… I suppose so, but the Father of the IVF child would be the male human whose semen was used, unless you think God has the animal power of reproduction.

Deeje Wrote…….. We have a study publication that ties in all the events from all the gospels to tell one story about the Messiah's spiritual journey from the announcement of his birth by the angel Gabriel (who also appeared to Daniel centuries before) to tell Mary that she would have the privilege of becoming his human mother and to assure Joseph that Mary was still a virgin, not pregnant to any man.....and right up to Jesus' return to his Father in heaven. It is told in simple terms so it is easy for even a child to understand the way everything transpired back then.

The Anointed…….. Sorry mate, nowhere is it said that Mary was still a virgin after she had conceived the child of Joseph ben Heli, which child, like Isaac, was conceived according to the workings of the Holy Spirit and born of a brother sister relation.

Matthew states that the birth of Jesus happened to make come true, what the Lord had said through his Prophet Isaiah, and that was, that an [ALMAH] ‘an unmarried woman’ who is pregnant will bear a son and he would be called “God is with us.” And we Know that the Lord God our saviour, who filled the man Jesus with his spirit, and who, from within his chosen earthly temple, [The Man Jesus] the Lord our saviour was with us and spoke his WORDS to us.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS in his mouth, and he and he shall speak to them all that I command, and whosoever will not heed MY WORDS which he shall speak in my name, I will punish, etc.

Destroy this Temple [Which temple was The Man Jesus] said the Lord, and in three days I will raise it up.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17: 31; For the Lord has fixed a day [And that day is the Lords day of one thousand years, the great Sabbath, of which Paul says is the future reality of which the weekly Sabbath was but a shadow] in which he will judge the whole world with Justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death. _________________________

It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (The Son of Man, the MOST HIGH in the creation) who said through his obedient servant Jesus; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since the accounts in both Matthew and Luke refer back to Isaiah's prophesy concerning a "maiden" who would give birth, we are assured from Mary herself that she had never had sexual relations with a man so she is perplexed at how she could become pregnant. Gabriel tells her it is by holy spirit that she has become impregnated. So Mary was a virgin, making Isaiah's prophesy true.

I'm not convinced Matthew and Luke refer back to Isaiah 7:14 as has been traditionally believed. Either way it makes no difference to me.

In Israel a "maiden" or "young woman" was unmarried and in most cases, a virgin. (perhaps being widowed early, she could still be young but unmarried.) No such mention is made concerning Mary. Her betrothal to Joseph was an assurance of marriage. Joseph and Mary both received assurances from God that these things were from him in order for his Messiah to come into the world....as the son of God.

All three narratives in the OP clearly identify Mary as a virgin. An Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in the Gospel accounts and the Quran has the Lord caring for Mary (No Joseph).

Why would we doubt God's ability to transfer the lifeforce of his son from heaven into the womb of a woman.
Today we have IVF as a common practice. Humans fertilize an egg artificially and introduce it into a woman's womb which results in a pregnancy. So is it impossible for God to do something like that?

I accept that such a miracle is possible. Combined with the accounts above it is sufficient for my faith. Unlike the crucifixion there is no solid evidence for it happening other than the Gospel accounts themselves. The Quran and Baha'i writings give added weight albeith through further Divine Revelation.

We have a study publication that ties in all the events from all the gospels to tell one story about the Messiah's spiritual journey from the announcement of his birth by the angel Gabriel (who also appeared to Daniel centuries before) to tell Mary that she would have the privilege of becoming his human mother and to assure Joseph that Mary was still a virgin, not pregnant to any man.....and right up to Jesus' return to his Father in heaven. It is told in simple terms so it is easy for even a child to understand the way everything transpired back then.

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

It seems like a clear and reasonable account.