₦airaland Forum

The test read positive. Ayesha’s face flushed; tears formed in her eyes. She was trapped. She would be killed. She was a stain on her family’s honor. Amir, her soon-to-be husband, would turn her in as soon as he found out. She knew she deserved death. The shame was unbearable.
That night she had a vision. The brightness blinded her at first, but gradually she saw an angelic face and it said, “Ayesha! You are favored indeed by Allah! For God himself is the Father of your child. Do not be afraid. He will be great and be called the Son of the Most High.”
The next day Ayesha told her fiancé that God had impregnated her, she was still a virgin, and an angel had told her this. Would you believe Ayesha?

An ancient book says a man 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin and was sired by God himself. I once believed this [edited ] ;

I was wrong. Here are five reasons why I no longer believe in the virgin birth.

1) There is no reliable evidence.
We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples…
Ordinary events require evidence, but extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. By any classification, the virgin birth is an extraordinary event, yet there is no evidence to support it.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples — we have nothing except a couple references in the Bible that were written many decades after the event occurred.

2) The earliest references are late and sparse.
Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources?
Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.
Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites:
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation!

It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.

3) It’s the same old myth.
The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends.
Jesus was not the first god to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.
Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and (therefore) said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.
The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends. It doesn’t have any more evidence or appear to be any more likely. Why believe it over the others?

4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?
“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
A betrothed teenage girl finds out she is pregnant. The father is not her soon-to-be husband, and he knows this. In her society, the penalty for this prescribed by God is death by stoning. What does she do? She claims an angel appeared to her and told her God impregnated her, and that she is now carrying the Son of God.

Now what is more likely, that she is lying or telling the truth? Even if Mary claimed this herself, we would not believe her. Now consider that the story didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened.
The likelihood of the virgin birth being true is very, very, very low.

5) We would never, ever, believe this today.
Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?
If she insisted on it being true, we would put her in a mental hospital.

Why does this change just because Jesus’ birth happened 2,000 years ago? There is no evidence in favor of it. Even if Mary herself claimed it, there would have been every incentive to lie about it since the only alternative was death. Again, why would anyone believe this?
* * *
We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources. There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims. It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today.

Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/06/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/

Macelliot:
All your threads on nairaland promotes Atheism is disguise.
.
None of your posts ever sounds fruitful to Christians, but are always more acceptable to Atheists.
...
Today, you antagonise the Catholics, tommorow, you against the Bible, says the Bible is corrupted, next the Pastors, the Priests, the Pentecostal teaching, the Jw, concept of Hell, Virgin birth, tithe, offering, miracles, wonders, divine healing, and divinity of Jesus Christ e.t.c
Very soon, you might as well say GOD doesn't exist, Jesus is a myth, The Bible is a dangerous book e.t.c

.
Frosbel, You are full of heretics!

frosbel: 5) We would never,
ever, believe this
today.
Imagine if a teenage
girl in your neighborhood
claimed that her
pregnancy was due
to God impregnating
her and that she was
still a virgin. Would
you believe her? Or
would you think she
was lying?[/b]

frosbel:
My dear, I keep asking myself what have I gotten myself into. For many years I believed in a set of dogmas and 'orthodox' doctrines , and despite the sometimes nagging questions on some of the church doctrines, falling out of line was no option as surely these great priests, popes and pastors knew better than I did.

It was only after leaving the system that I began to research ( over 3-4 years ) all my previous beliefs and found that 80% were based on fiction, superstition, pagan fables and outright lies.

Welcome to Trinity ( Pagan ), Hell Fire ( Pagan ), Virgin Birth ( Pagan ) and Tithes ( Fraud ).

My friend, JESUS is the CHRIST but he was a MAN not a GOD , take off your religious dogmatic glasses and like the bereans begin to study and show yourself approved of God, rightly diving the word of God. Stop following the herd, come back to the narrow way.

Macelliot:
If Virgin birth was a Lie, then Prophet Isaiah told lies by prophesizing that a Virgin will begot a Son and His name shall be called 'Emmanuel.' - Isaiah 6

Isaiah 7:14 – A Virgin Birth?

Many Christians and professional missionaries like to quote the following verse as a proof-text.

“Behold the Lord Himself will give you a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

They claim that this passage prophesies the miraculous virgin birth of the Messiah and that Jesus is the only one who could have fulfilled it. They also point out that the name Immanuel literally means “God is with us,” and use this as a proof of the divine nature of this individual.

The New Testament book of Matthew recounts the genealogy of Jesus starting from Abraham and ending with Joseph the husband of Mary. It claims (Matthew 1:18-25) that when they were betrothed and had not yet consummated their marriage Joseph discovered that Mary was with child and still a virgin. Not wanting to disgrace her he planned to put her away secretly. Only afterwards does the gospel claim that an angel comes and informs Joseph that this event is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah.

This entire story is extremely puzzling and a major question begs to be answered. If the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 is so clear and fundamental to the coming of the Messiah, why was Joseph, a descendant of King David, totally oblivious to it. Upon discovering that his virgin wife was with child he should have jumped for joy that this may be the precursor to the arrival of the Messiah. Instead he suspects her of infidelity.

The answer is simply. This passage in Isaiah isn’t speaking about the Messiah or a virgin birth.

Let’s begin by examining the context of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. In the same way that America and Korea were divided into North and South during their Civil wars, at this point in Jewish history the Jewish nation was divided into two kingdoms, known as the Southern Kingdom of Judea and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Each kingdom had its own capital, king and enemies.

The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus.

God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.” Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God
will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.

Although Ahaz was an evil king, God would continue to protect Jerusalem in the merit of his righteous predecessors. When Ahaz ignores Isaiah’s warning the prophet tells him to request a sign from God. After Ahaz refuses this offer, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign in spite of his stubbornness.

He tells King Ahaz that:

“The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (הָעַלְמָה) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

The word Almah has been mistranslated by most Christians as “virgin.” In truth this word means “young women.” Additionally, the definite article (Ha-ה) means “the” and indicates that the prophet is speaking about a specific woman who he can point to. Interestingly when Matthew quotes this passage he not only mistranslates “young women” as “virgin” but, in an attempt to deflect the reference from a specific women standing before Isaiah, he intentionally mistranslates “the young women” as “a virgin.”

In an attempt to prove that “Almah” does in fact mean “a virgin” missionaries fallaciously assert that this word is used 7 times in the bible and that it always refers to a women who is a virgin.

First, those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” inconsistently translate the other six places a as “maiden or young women” revealing their intentional mistranslation.

The word “Almah” should always be translated as “a young women.” This word alone does not teach us anything about her sexual status. It simply informs us that she is young.

This is also true of the masculine form of the word “Almah” which is the Hebrew word (Alem עָלֶם) which means “a young man”, as in the following examples:

“Whose son is this young man (הָעָלֶם)” 1 Samuel 17:56
“If I say thus to the young man” l Samuel 20:22.

In both cases the word “Alem” only teaches that this man is young, it gives no indication of his sexual status, which by men is indiscernible.

The Hebrew bible has a completely different word for virgin. The specific hebrew word is (Betulah – בְּתּוּלָה). This word has no masculine form and indicates the physical sexual status of a woman. It is always translated as “virgin.” For example:

“the girl was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה), and no man had had any relations with her” Genesis 24:16
“I took the women, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה)”
Deut 22:14
“And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh 400 young virgins that had known no man.” Judges 21:12

These verses show us that the word “Betulah” means “a virgin who has not had physical relations with a man,” regardless of her age. She could be 100 years old or 18 years old. If Isaiah had wanted to tell us the physical status of the women he would have used the specific word “Betulah,” a word he was familiar with and uses in his writings (see Isaiah 47:1).

Missionary are incorrect when they claims that whenever the word “Almah” is used it is referring to a young women who is also a virgin. Here are some examples were it cannot mean a virgin:

“There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines and young women (Almot) without number, my dove my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice of her that bore her,” Song of Songs 6:8-9

“There are three things which are to wonderful for me, yes, four which I know not. The way of the eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea and the way of a man with a young women (Almah). Likewise, the way of an adulterous woman, she eats, and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’.” Proverbs 30:18-20

The common characteristic: “the way” is that they all leave no trace, just like an adulterous women who claims she has done nothing wrong, and there is no trace of her act, so too the eagle
leaves no trace in the air, a snake leaves no trace on a rock, a ship leaves no trace in the midst of the sea, so too the young women (Almah) with a man leaves no sign which is not the case of a virgin who leaves a sign of blood called “the token of her virginity” Deuteronomy 21:15-19.

We also see this in the verse:

“Bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity” Deuteronomy 22:15

Missionaries attempt to prove that “Almah” means a “virgin” by referring to an ancient Greek translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, which was carried out by 70 rabbis approximately 165 years before Jesus. They claim that in Isaiah 7:14 the word “Almah” is translated as the Greek “parthenos- παρθενον ” which they claim means virgin.

There are a number of problems with this claim.

First, the Septuagint also translates the Hebrew word (Narah-נַעַרָ-maiden) in Genesis 34:3 as “parthenos.”

“…Shechem…took her and lay with her by force. And his soul was drawn to her …and he loved the maiden (Narah -הנער), and he spoke to the heart of the maiden (Narah- הנער).” Genesis 34:2 3

In context this passage is speaking about Dinah the daughter of Jacob, after she was raped by a non-Jew know as Shechem. Obviously she was not a virgin and we cannot rely on the Septuagint’s inaccurate translation.

Secondly, according to both Jewish and Greek traditions, (see Babylonian Talmud Megila 9a and Aristeos’ letter to King Ptolemy) the Septuagint translation attributed to the 70 Rabbi’s was exclusively the Five Books of Moses and did not include the Prophets and the Holy writings, thereby distancing itself from any Greek translation of Isaiah.

Additionally, there are no original copies of the Septuagint. Today’s versions are taken from second and third century manuscripts that had been corrupted by non-Jewish writers. That is why the introduction to the Zondervan Septuagint points out that “the Pentateuch is considered to be the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.”

Numerous Christian translations like The New Revised Standard Version recognize this mistake and correctly translate “Almah” as “the young women.”

Whether or not the woman mentioned by Isaiah is a virgin is completely irrelevant. How would anyone know without doing a physical examine and even then this is not absolute proof.

Examining the Hebrew more closely we note that the Hebrew verbs for “conceived – harah” and “will give birth – voledet” are used throughout scriptures to refer to natural conceptions and birth, as in:

“And man new his wife and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) and bore Cain” Genesis 4:1

These are the same verbs used in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to a natural birth. The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with a miraculous birth.

In context Isaiah is speaking about a specific young woman who will become pregnant during the life time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. A miraculous virgin birth that supposedly took place over
560 years later would be irrelevant to Ahaz, who required a sign prior to an imminent military invasion.

Christians attempt to avoid this problem by claiming that this is a “double level prophesy” that happens both during the time of Ahaz and again in the time of Jesus. If Christians want to believe that the word Almah means a virgin and simultaneously claim a “double level prophesy” they would have to believe that a virgin birth took place in the time of Ahaz. However this never occurred and would also contradict the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is describe in the next verse:

“before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah:

“he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (Tahar) and bore (Taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.”
Isaiah 8:4

It is clear that the women mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.

“Behold I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel.” Isaiah 8:18
King Ahaz was told to trust in G-d for assistance and to ask for a sign as proof that his enemies would be defeated. He is told that the sign will be the birth of a child from the young woman who will call the child (Immanuel –עמנואל). Although this name mean ‘God is with us” it does not mean that the child will be divine. It is very common for biblical personality to have names that include God and part of their name. For example (Daniel –דניאל) means “God is my Judge.”

The implication was that G-d would be with Ahaz and the Kingdom of Judah in their fight against their enemies.

Isaiah refers to this when he says:

“Contrive a scheme, but it will be foiled; conspire a plot, but it will not stand, for God is with us (Emanu El).” Isaiah 8:10

Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom:

“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6

“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22

The concept of a virgin birth preceded Christianity and has its roots in Greco-Roman mythology. Numerous Greek and Roman gods were born of virgin births, as recorded in the “Golden Bough” by Frazer, for example Tammus and Attis who both were claimed to be of virgin births, The concept of the virgin birth was adopted by Christianity from the pagan world and has no foundation in Judaism.

Isaiah is clearly describing an event that has no Messianic connotations. In fact the word Messiah is never used in this chapter.

Written and compiled by Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz
© 2005 Jews for Judaism

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/counter-missionary-2/texts/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

Macelliot:
If Virgin birth was a Lie, then Prophet Isaiah told lies by prophesizing that a Virgin will begot a Son and His name shall be called 'Emmanuel.' - Isaiah 6

frosbel:
Correction, Isaiah 6 does not talk about the virgin birth.

lastmessenger:
Frosbel is not a Christian.

lastmessenger:
Frosbel is not a Christian.

frosbel:
2) The earliest references are late and sparse.
Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet. Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important. The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet. Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of

johnydon22:
God wanted to give ahaz a sign that the northern invaders will fail.... am still wondering how the sign came many decades after ahaz was already dead and forgotten, all the events regarding the invasion forgotten... since ahaz was already dead who else was the sign for.. lmao.. SMH

[quote author=BossTtdiamonds post=28845590]The belief that God exists, presumes that God would have the power to miraculously impregnate a virgin woman.

It's only if you believe that God does not exist then you would be able to assert correctly that virgin birth is impossible.

But you see the very question at stake is does God exist or not? If God does exist, the story of the virgin birth is not hard at all to believe, so we need to get to the root question. Nevertheless, modern medical doctors have been doing in vitro fertilization and implantation of embryos for a few decades now. If humans can do it, why would one think the creator of the universe and all life can't? Why do Atheist believe in abiogenesis and not in the virgin birth?

I kind of like the way athesit are divertin' their argument, first they question the existence of Jesus but the historical scholar (include hardcore atheist ones) would disagree with em' here. We have more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than we have for almost any other figure in ancient history. Now ya'll question the virgin birth.

This sort of objection demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lackin' mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time the were readin' this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.

It also matches the point that the NT was written in a "high context" settin' on which people's background knowledge of events was substantially assumed, as opposed to our "low context" society in which we feel a need to explain everythin', every time.

frosbel:
Yes, I am not a Christian in the orthodox definition, i.e i am a follower of Yeshua.

frosbel:
Blasphemy !! God is not a MAN and he does not impregnate virgins, this is the stuff of pagan myth and religious garbage. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind........" - Numbers 23:19

Weak straw man's argument.

IVF still involves the fertilization of the egg by sperm albeit under a controlled laboratory condition. IVF does not involve the fertilization of the egg by an invisible seed/force , it still obeys the laws of nature ( male + female = baby ). And by the way , no one is saying that God cannot do it, the question is why will he go against the very laws that he made ? Very illogical.

I do not doubt the existence of Yeshua, in fact I am a follower of Yeshua the MAN , the Christ and hence Mediator between God and MAN.

If the Virgin birth held such significance, Paul never mentioned it and neither did John, James and most of the apostles, why ?? It means it was a highly insignificant event. Also, remember the letters of Paul and gospel of Mark pre-dated the other 3 gospels and hence are a more accurate reflection of fact.

Finally, the biographies of Jesus in Matthew and Mark
are contradictory, deceptive and a dishonest
misrepresentation of the truth. Jesus had to come from
the seed of david through a MAN not a WOMAN. "I will establish your line forever and make your throne
firm through all generations.'' - Psalm 89:4 " Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come
from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the
town where David lived?" - John 7:42

Yeah right !

frosbel:
My dear, I keep asking myself what have I gotten myself into. For many years I believed in a set of dogmas and 'orthodox' doctrines , and despite the sometimes nagging questions on some of the church doctrines, falling out of line was no option as surely these great priests, popes and pastors knew better than I did.

It was only after leaving the system that I began to research ( over 3-4 years ) all my previous beliefs and found that 80% were based on fiction, superstition, pagan fables and outright lies.

Welcome to Trinity ( Pagan ), Hell Fire ( Pagan ), Virgin Birth ( Pagan ) and Tithes ( Fraud ).

My friend, JESUS is the CHRIST but he was a MAN not a GOD , take off your religious dogmatic glasses and like the bereans begin to study and show yourself approved of God, rightly diving the word of God. Stop following the herd, come back to the narrow way.

lastmessenger:
I may not believe everything you say or believe in but I must say that I admire your boldness. You no be follow follow.

BossTtdiamonds:
In twitter we call tis' "sub".. It's spotted and highly insignificant

johnydon22:
God wanted to give ahaz a sign that the northern invaders will fail.... am still wondering how the sign came many decades after ahaz was already dead and forgotten, all the events regarding the invasion forgotten... since ahaz was already dead who else was the sign for.. lmao.. SMH

lastmessenger:
O boy Wetin I do you na?You be satan we no de rest.

BossTtdiamonds:
You no kuku do me anythin'... I just like to dey find trouble.. Nor mind me.. All that yabbin' na just play play oh!..
How you dey..?? Plus I nor be satan oh!..

johnydon22:
lolz for ur mind.... isaiah said a maiden/young woman not virgin... and their is no way anybody named jesus emmanuel, he was named yehushuah ...
oh matthew..smh..

frosbel:
don't mind them , religion has turned them into zombies.

johnydon22:
lolz for ur mind.... isaiah said a maiden/young woman not virgin... and their is no way anybody named jesus emmanuel, he was named yehushuah ...
oh matthew..smh..

frosbel: 5) We would never,
ever, believe this
today.
Imagine if a teenage
girl in your
neighborhood
claimed that her
pregnancy was due
to God impregnating
her and that she
was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?

If the
prophesy in Isaiah
7:14 is so clear and
fundamental to the
coming of the
Messiah, why was
Joseph, a descendant
of King David, totally
oblivious to it. Upon
discovering that his
virgin wife was with
child he should have
jumped for joy that this may be the
precursor to the
arrival of the
Messiah, instead He suspect her of infidelity.

honourhim:
Bro you dont even have a stand. Do you?