How/What does the WTS teach about the birth of Jesus? Do they Deny or not teach the virgin birth? Ignor it? ?
Virgin Birth
by bite me 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
skyking
They believe in it.
Are you questioning it? If so I would love to hear your conclusion.
-
bite me
Not questioning it, I believe in it. I read somewhere where they did not believe in it to the extent that it is applied in the Bible.
Let me get back to you. I'll let you know if I find what I found before.
-
skyking
That would be new to me if you could find anything.
I hope you do.
-
JCanon
Not questioning it, I believe in it. I read somewhere where they did not believe in it to the extent that it is applied in the Bible.
Let me get back to you. I'll let you know if I find what I found before.
You might have in mind, related to this, is the different view JWs have the Catholics that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ and never had sex and thus any other children by Joseph even though the Bible clearly indicates so. I have a Catholic friend whom I discussed this with and he just plainly said that part of the Bible was incorrect or misleading. Done! No twisting, no arguing, just Mary is a Virgin, always was and always will be!... and that's it. She never had sex with any man, ever. Otherwise, as noted, JWs do believe in the virgin birth of Christ. JCanon
-
golden age
My friend:
The bible does not clearly teach that jesus had brothers and sisters as you state:
First off there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". For example, in Genesis 14:14, where Lot who was Abraham's nephew is called his brother.
If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27 prior to jesus death jesus intrusted the care of his mother to john his diciple, if mary had any other sons this would have been a great insult in jewish tradition.
Remember, all questions have answers, sometimes you just have to search for them!!!
-
JCanon
The bible does not clearly teach that jesus had brothers and sisters as you state:
First off there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". For example, in Genesis 14:14, where Lot who was Abraham's nephew is called his brother.
If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27 prior to jesus death jesus intrusted the care of his mother to john his diciple, if mary had any other sons this would have been a great insult in jewish tradition.
Very interesting. But strange you didn't specifically quote the scripture regarding his "brothers and sisters". Let's quote it and see if "cousin" or "nephew" makes a much sense:
Matt. 13:56 “Where did this man get this wisdom and these powerful works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did this man get all these things?”
Now, my question would be, why would cousins and nephews and neices be in the context here before an aunt? That is, if Jesus was an only child but he had other relatives, after mentioning his mother and father, seems they would have mentioned is aunt and uncle more primarily than cousins.
Further this must be contrasted with this reference:
But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.GALATIONS 1:19
You have mention in Matthew of a brother named James and here in Galations James being identified as the "brother of the Lord."
As far as Jesus entrusting Mary to John, there could have been many circumstantial reasons, two of which that immediately come to mind:
1) John was the "one Jesus loved." John wasn't married. Jesus and John were, "special companions" in a relationship closer than he had with the other disciples. So entrusting John to look after his mother may have been based upon the relationship all three of them had.
2) The second thing that comes to mind is that Jesus had decided that John would not die. There were two groups of Christians, those who would die and some who would remain alive over 1900 years until Christ returned for various reasons. Paul and John were chosen not to die (1 Thess 4:15). But it would seem Mary, the woman God chose to bring the messiah into the world would likewise be chosen not to die either, thus entrusting her to John was a logistical decision. Who more appropriate to entrust the care of your mother to?
Further, Mary may have preferred this as well.
At any rate, I sometimes think the Templars somehow found out about the surviving congregation and the records they kept, maybe even Mary and John and that's what their whole secret society was based on, looking for these surviving blood relatives of Jesus and other Jews and all the records they maintained.
But even if Jesus was an only child, it would be reasonable to think that Joseph would have had sex with his own wife.
Cheers,
JC
-
Steve J
As an ex JW I know they believe the Virgin Birth, as do most "Christians", but there seems to be evidence to suggest that the Jews were certainly not expecting their Messiah to be born by anything other than natural means.
Some scholars have suggested that the Greek Speaking translator of Matthew mistranslated the prophecy found in the scroll of Isaiah (Isa 7:14) and the Hebrew word almah meaning young woman was changed to the Greek parthenos meaning virgin and that's where the idea of the virgin birth originated.
There is also a large question mark over the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke and clear evidence that some names were left out of Jesus' genealogy to make it fit more comfortably with the authors idea of the significance of there being 14 generations between Abraham and David, David and the deportation to Babylon and from then until the arrival of the Messiah. (see Matt 1:17)
If you compare Matthew 1:8 with 1 Cronicles 3:10-12 you can see that the names Amaziah, jehoash and Ahaziah were omitted from the Matthew account.
The Oxford Bible Commentary states;
The outstanding feature of this passage is its triadic structure: there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from david to the captivity and fourteen from the captivity to Jesus (v. 17). The scheme is artificial. Not only have several names been omitted from the monarchial period, but there are only thirteen generations in the third series. (But cf.vl at v. II) Probably the key to understand the composition is the device known as gematria, by which names are given numerical value. (cf. Rev 13:18) In Hebrew David's name has three consonants, the numerical value of which amounts to fourteen: d + w + d = 4 + 6 + 4. When it is added that David's name is fourteenth on the list, that he is given the title, 'king', and that David occurs both before and after the genealogy, we may infer that 'David' is the structural key to vv. 2-17. (Oxford Bible Commentary page 848.
Finally, the Matthew genealogy traces Jesus back through Joseph, who was not his biological father according to the gospel accounts, but makes the mistake of listing Jechonia, "son of Jehoiakim and grandson of good King Josiah," (Insight on the Scriptures Vol.1 page 1262) in the lineage, but when we compare Jeremiah 22:30 we see this line was cursed by Yahweh.
This is what Jehovah has said, 'Write down this man as childless, as an able-bodied man who will not have any success in his days; for from his offspring not a single one will have any success sitting upon the throne of david and ruling anymore in Judah.' (NWT)
This leaves a large question mark over the whole Matthew account, its authenticity, the virgin birth and the accepted "Christian" tradition that Jesus was the son of God, for if Jesus was a devine son, why try to make him out to be something that he was plainly not?
By the way, you will never hear any of the above discussed by JW's, or in any of their publications and if you raise these questions in their congregations you are quickly labled "apostate."
Yours in search of truth,
Steve J
-
JCanon
Hi Steve, interesting stuff!!!
Some scholars have suggested that the Greek Speaking translator of Matthew mistranslated the prophecy found in the scroll of Isaiah (Isa 7:14) and the Hebrew word almah meaning young woman was changed to the Greek parthenos meaning virgin and that's where the idea of the virgin birth originated.
This is true, but its a moot point if this is considered a cryptic interpretation. That is, the gospel was interpreting "maid" in relation to the virgin birth, whether or not its meaning always meant virgin. Given a choice whether Isaiah meant just a young girl or a virgin is an option.
There is also a large question mark over the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke and clear evidence that some names were left out of Jesus' genealogy to make it fit more comfortably with the authors idea of the significance of there being 14 generations between Abraham and David, David and the deportation to Babylon and from then until the arrival of the Messiah. (see Matt 1:17)
Agreed. This is probably a "device" with some hidden meaning. But unless we know precisely what the criteria was for this reference its only conjecture there is an "error" here. For instance, perhaps the reference is simply to assert a minimum of 14 generations, though it could be more, technically. In that case the focus was only to establish the minimal 14 generations to fit the pattern. Similar to the 12 children of Jacob, even though he had daughters, the focus was on the 12 sons. Later the pattern included the two sons of Joseph. So clearly the Bible sometimes takes its own artistic liberties in interpretation and that's up to the gospel writers and others: "Interpretation belongs to God." I acknowledge the legitimate inquiry but for so many of these issues like this, there are plenty of back doors to escape the issues of "error" usually.
This leaves a large question mark over the whole Matthew account, its authenticity, the virgin birth and the accepted "Christian" tradition that Jesus was the son of God, for if Jesus was a devine son, why try to make him out to be something that he was plainly not?
What is the Jewish tradition and the ultimate Judeo-Christian tradition would be two different things. Lots of things in the Bible were made secretive and "sacred secrets", meaning many things could have two or more meanings, and prophets were there to interpret things and put them together. Since, however, the concept of Mary being a virgin is a direct reference, it doesn't matter what the Jews might have expected traditionally or otherwse. On the esoteric level, the two wave offerings, both of which represent the messiah's body, it is clear that the "unleavened bread" indicates he is a perfect man, sinless, and thus would not have had a natural father who was descended from Adam. So the details of her brith explain how he could be sinless at the first coming. So what was "traditional" among the Jews and what was understood from the correct understanding of Jewish tradition are two different things. The "unleavened bread" a key symbol for the Jews during Passover confirms the need for a virgin birth, ultimately.
By the way, you will never hear any of the above discussed by JW's, or in any of their publications and if you raise these questions in their congregations you are quickly labled "apostate."
Ain't that the truth! AVOIDANCE is very effective. If your eyes are closed you can imagine it's light outside when it's pitch black. DENIAL does work sometimes.
Thanks for the references.
JCanon
-
golden age
Here is further proof jesus did not have brothers or sister and that in fact the brothers and sisters mentioned in the bible are just relatives.
In Mt. 27:55-56,James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. This is clear because this mary is watching jesus crucifixation from far off. The mother of jesus was at the foot of the cross. Another passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Obviously mary did not have this many children.
Lastly it may be seem like joseph would have had sex with his wife based on todays standards. But remember Mary was visited by an angel of god and was told that she would be the mother of the son of god. The bible specifically states that mary did not have sex prior to the birth of jesus. If they did not have sex while they were pregnant, what is the difference, why have sex after. It makes sense that joseph may have considered that mary was purified by god and he may have respected her special relationship with god and not had sex with her.
Hope this helps.