Posts by Steve J

33

John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J in

in bite me's recent post about the virgin birth i raised some serious questions which make us doubt that jesus was conceived by gods holy spirit.

my research over the last few years, since leaving jw's has led me to believe jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful.

this post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about john the baptist and the part he played in jesus' life.. in islam, john the baptist and jesus are as important as one another and in arabic, the language of the qur'an, john is known as yahya the infinite.

Steve J

Hi Joseph,

Sorry its taken so long to reply and thanks again for the thought provoking debate.

Re: Matt 3:7. I can't see how this shows John the Baptist was opposed to the law, rather, he was opposed to those not keeping it and practicing false worship. Later we find Jesus taking the same message to the religious leaders of the day, accusing them of putting heavy loads on the peoples shoulders and not being willing to help them. He also accused them of fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah by following the traditions of men, letting go of the commandments, and making the word of God invalid. (Matt 15:1-11 23:4. Mark 7:5-8) On another occasion when the rich young man asked; "What must I do to get eternal life?" Jesus plainly said; "Obey the commandments." Even this wouldn't make him perfect though, as when the man said; "All these I have kept," Jesus told him to sell all his belongings and follow him. So we find two things here then; firstly, that Jesus taught everlasting life was dependant on obeying the law, or commandments and secondly obedience to the law wouldn't make you perfect. (Matt 19:16-22) It also shows that rather than abolishing the law, Jesus enhanced it and this is waht I meant when I refered to the Sermon on the Mount.

You used this example:in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus teaches, by firstly reminding the people of the law on adultery and then saying; "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart." (Matt 5:27,28)
Where in the Law is that found?

Here, Jesus wasn't rewriting the law, but enhancing it, and in fulfilment of Jeremiah 31 making a new covenant with his followers by putting the law in their hearts, or as NWT puts it; "I wil put my law within them and in their heart I shall write it." Jesus was using a prevention method, to get people to think about things more deeply, and control their thoughts first, before it led then into sin. (Jer 31:31-33)

To be honest Joseph, I hadn't thought about Jesus issuing commandments before, but wasn't that acceptable in his role as a prophet? Even more so if he was the Son of God. By issuing these commandments he in no way undermined the law though and its interesting that when challenged over which was the greatest of the commandment Jesus replied; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your mind...And...Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:34-40) Its also worth noting that the person questioning Jesus was "an expert in the law." The command to love God is found at Deut 6:5 and correct me if I'm wrong I don't think the command to love neighbour appeared in the law in as many words, but the expert obviously knew it was there in essence, otherwise he would have challenged Jesus about this. Really, Jesus summed up the law perfectly here and if his followers kept those two things in mind, (loving God and neighbour) they would have fulfilled their obligation to the law. All of the other commands Jesus gave fell under these two statements and we could say were part of the law.

And Jesus said: Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. And again: Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. Since Jesus was providing commandments of His own that differed from the Law and its commandments as taught at the last supper by drinking the wine which represented His blood for example how is it that this Jesus was supporting the Law and its continuation? And how about this commandment of Jesus: 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. Where is this found in the Law?

As a prophet of Yahweh, teacher and rabbi Jesus represented his God and father, so these were not his own commandments and John 8:27-30 makes that quite clear for Jesus said; "I do nothing on my own but speak just as the Father has taught me." Jesus would hardly overstep the commandments of God, by making up his own, when that's exactly what he critisized the Pharisees and Scribes for, would he?

So many texts like Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses - apart of Paul’s writings so where do I start? Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. A better hope brought in? Not a continuation of this Law? Any other form of worship deemed better would have violated this Law making the worshipers apostate and libel to be stoned. Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Wow! The Law broken big time. Get out the stones. And it goes on and on like this but not so if your mind is closed. It is not necessary to cover every verse and cross every tee. You have your views and I have stated mine. It is up to the readers now to study the matter on their own and make up their own minds.

The point I made was that I hadn't seen anything other than in Paul where Jesus, or John the Baptist suggested they were going to abolish the law, yet all the verses quoted above were either penned by Paul, who most scholars believe wrote Hebrews, or his disciple Luke, who wrote Acts, so we'd expect them to suggest this. (Colossians 4:14 & Philemon 24)

The priesthood and rulership of Israel was changed, just as Jeremiah and Ezekiel had prohesied. Why? Because they had continually disregarded the Law and had turned away from true worship. Ezekiel 21:26 makes it quite clear when Yahweh commands; "Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin. It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it."

The above prophecy forcasts the end of both the royal and priestly lines, which would not be the same, but rather, would be given to whom it rightfully belongs and quite possibly a King/Priest in the manner of Melchizadek. (Psalm 110:4) Just because the priesthood was changed due to their dissobedience to the law, there is nothing to suggest that the Law had to change also.

Thanks again Joseph for a most interesting debate.

Steve J

33

John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J in

in bite me's recent post about the virgin birth i raised some serious questions which make us doubt that jesus was conceived by gods holy spirit.

my research over the last few years, since leaving jw's has led me to believe jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful.

this post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about john the baptist and the part he played in jesus' life.. in islam, john the baptist and jesus are as important as one another and in arabic, the language of the qur'an, john is known as yahya the infinite.

Steve J

Hi again Joseph,

I'm not sure if its my insomnia, a stinking cold, or the fact that the evidence just isn't there, but I still can't see how you can suggest John the Baptist and Jesus did anything but uphold the law. Jeremiah 31 when speaking of the new covenant doesn't suggest that the law would be abolished, but rather that it would be enhanced by God, for he declares in v.33; "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." This is exactly what Jesus, (and no doubt John the Baptist also) did and evidence of this is found in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus teaches, by firstly reminding the people of the law on adultery and then saying; "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart." (Matt 5:27,28)

As Jesus and the crowds came down the mountain, Matthew also reports his encounter with the leper. After curing the man Jesus then instructed him; "Go show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded." (Matt 8:1-4) Similarly when questioned over healing on the Sabbath, Jesus didn't suggest the law was obsolete, but he used a common sense approach to it asking if it was lawful to do good or bad, to save life, or kill on the Sabbath. (Mark 3:4) He also reasoned that if an animal fell into a pit on a Sabbath, they wouldn't think twice about lifting it out, so what harm was there in healing on the Sabbath also. (Matt. 12:11-12) These are hardly the actions of someone who didn't uphold the law.

You also mentioned the Lords Supper and the new covenant found at Luke 22, but I can't even see how this abolished the law. All it did was establish a promise that if Jesus' disciples remained faithful they would have a share in the atonement of his redeeming death. This idea of a new covenant was not something new in Judea either, and the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the Essenes, also believed they had entered into a new covenant with God, to become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. They seem to have believed that only they had the correct undrestanding of the Scriptures and that their Teacher of Righteousness was the prime interpreter of the Law and the Prophets. There seems to be many paralells with the Essenes, or Dead Sea Scroll community and Jesus' teachings, but my point is, they also looked to Jeremiah 31, but believed fidelity to the covenant demanded strict obedience to the law and the prophets.

Finally, I suppose I ought to lay my cards on the table and tell you where I come from, and some would say not on this planet no doubt. But in a previous post (360 re: Matt 5:17-20) I mentioned that I'd come to the conclusion that the apostacy in the early church was down to Paul. I know you take the opposite view and suggest the Jerusalem Elders became apostate for a time, before Paul brought them back into line. I base my conclusions, (although they're not set in stone and I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, if I see the proof, I hasten to add) but I base them on the fact that I can't find anything other than in Paul's writings which suggests Jesus intended to do away with the law. He came to fulfil the law by living to the very letter of it, even to his crucifixion and death, and thereby provide atonement for our sins and a way back to a closer relationship with God. To me, Jesus proved that it was possible for an ordinary man to live by the law and he was instrumental in writing the law on our hearts, certainly not in abolishing it.

If I'm right, this would have some rather dramatic consequences for "Christianity" and turn it on its head, as to me, it seems to be based more on Pauline teaching than on the teachings of Jesus. I think the clues are all there in the Scriptures, but it requires us to stand back and look at them from a fresh angle before we truly appreciate just how remarkable they are. Again, I'm not claiming I'm right, or that I have any divine inspiration, its just that these are the conclusions I have drawn after leaving JW's and attempting to look at the Scriptures again as if for the first time.

Regards

Steve J

33

John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J in

in bite me's recent post about the virgin birth i raised some serious questions which make us doubt that jesus was conceived by gods holy spirit.

my research over the last few years, since leaving jw's has led me to believe jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful.

this post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about john the baptist and the part he played in jesus' life.. in islam, john the baptist and jesus are as important as one another and in arabic, the language of the qur'an, john is known as yahya the infinite.

Steve J

Brilliant explanation Leolaia. Thanks for that.

Joseph,

John the Baptist and Jesus had the same goal in mind...The restoration of true worship and adherence to the Law.
True worship Yes, and the Law No! It was the time that Malachi predicted when: 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. It was a dreadful time for the Jews, the Day of the Lord for them. Such an expression could be used for other Judgment times as well but not here.

I found Malachi interesting reading, but why do you suggest John the Baptist & Jesus didn't have adherence to the Law as their goal?

In v.4 Malachi urges; Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel." Then in V.5 he says; "I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." (NIV)

If Jesus identified John the Baptist as the Elijah Malachi prophesied would come in the great and dreadful day of the Lord, surely he would also have had in mind Malachi's admonition to "remember the law of my servant Moses" ?

I can't recall anywhere in the gospels where Jesus teaches anything other than obedience to the law and Matthew 5:17-19 seems to make it quite clear that he didn't come to abolish it, but rather, to fulfill the law and that anyone breaking the law, or the least of the commandments would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Steve J

33

John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J in

in bite me's recent post about the virgin birth i raised some serious questions which make us doubt that jesus was conceived by gods holy spirit.

my research over the last few years, since leaving jw's has led me to believe jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful.

this post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about john the baptist and the part he played in jesus' life.. in islam, john the baptist and jesus are as important as one another and in arabic, the language of the qur'an, john is known as yahya the infinite.

Steve J

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the post I've found it most interesting as usual.

M.J. I've asked the same questions myself and still find v.12 hard to understand, so would be greatful if anyone can enlighten us.

The NIV Stuby Bible renders v.12 as follows;

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the knigdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it

Joseph, could I please ask if you would be so kind as to explain your last comment. Are you saying that John was a violent man, who took the kingdom by force?

I have certainly found parallels between Elijah and John and Jesus and Elisha come to that and that's what led me to believe that Jesus was John's disciple. It seems to me Elijah and Elisha were committed to restoring true worship in Israel and John the Baptist and Jesus had the same goal in mind...The restoration of true worship and adherence to the Law.

Steve J

33

John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J in

in bite me's recent post about the virgin birth i raised some serious questions which make us doubt that jesus was conceived by gods holy spirit.

my research over the last few years, since leaving jw's has led me to believe jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful.

this post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about john the baptist and the part he played in jesus' life.. in islam, john the baptist and jesus are as important as one another and in arabic, the language of the qur'an, john is known as yahya the infinite.

Steve J

In bite me's recent post about the Virgin Birth I raised some serious questions which make us doubt that Jesus was conceived by Gods Holy Spirit. My research over the last few years, since leaving JW's has led me to believe Jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful. This post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about John the Baptist and the part he played in Jesus' life.

In Islam, John the Baptist and Jesus are as important as one another and in Arabic, the language of the Qur'an, John is known as Yahya the Infinite. He is called righteous, honorable and chaste, as well as the Prophet of the Righteousnes. According to the Qur'an, John came to confirm the word of God and both John and Jesus are great prophets, their births both being fortold by the angel Gabriel. (Qur'an 3:33-41. 6:84-90. & 19:1-15)

The 1st. cent. Jewish historian Josephus, only briefly mentions Jesus, saying he was a wise man who performed many astounding feats, but in describing John the Baptist, who he seems to have had an even greater respect for, he tells us much more, which suggests John was a more important figure of the time than Jesus was, in Josephus' time at least. (See Atiquities 18:3.3.63 & 5.2)

Josephus corroborates what we know about John from the Bible and we find John mentioned in all the canonical gospels. Those attributed to Matthew and Luke however, provide the greatest detial about his ministry and from Luke we can calculate the start of his ministry as being around the year 29C.E. (Luke 3:1-4) It was then that John began baptizing people as a sign of their repentance, confirming Josephus, who wrote;

(John was) a good man who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. (Antiquities 5.2)

When speaking of Jesus though, rather than giving us a precise date, as he did with the beginning of John's ministry, Luke simply states:

Jesus himself, when he commenced his work was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was of Joseph. (Luke 3:23 NWT)

It seems rather odd to me that we are given a precise date for the commencement of John's ministry and only a vague mention that Jesus was about 30 when he began his. Again, this seems to put more emphasis on John's ministry than Jesus'.

Matthew on the other hand, after telling us of John's ministry says;

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him. (Matthew 3:13)

Although we are then told how John protested saying that Jesus ought to be baptizing John, the fact is, Jesus was baptized by John as a symbol of repentance, for forgiveness of sins, or as Josephus says; "for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

If Jesus had been conceived by Mary through Holy Spirit, and was the perfect son of God, why would he feel the need for John's batism in symbol of repentance?

Matthew 3:13 also suggests Jesus made the effort to come from Galilee and search John out "in order to be baptized by him." Jesus obviously knew what John's baptism was all about, especially as he was a relative, and it seems that he (Jesus) wanted to become John's disciple. Is there any evidence of this though?

The simple answer is yes, and we can see this when we compare John's message with that of Jesus. Matthew reports of John;

When he caught sight of the Pharisees and Saducees coming to the baptism, he said; 'You offspring of vipers, who has suggested that you are able to escape the coming anger of God? Produce the fruits that befits repentance first, and do not presume to claim (righteousness because) you have Abraham as your father, for God is able to raise children of Abraham from these very stones. The axe is lying at the roots of the trees already and every tree that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. I for my part baptize you in water, but the one coming after me will baptize with spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:7-11)

When we compare the above with Jesus' words, we find him using similar phrases in his own ministry, just any disciple would. At Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus warns of false prophets and warns; "by their fruits you will recognize them." At Matthew 23:33 he calls the Pharisees the "offspring of vipers," and attacks the religious leaders of Jerusalem in much the same way as John the Baptist did. In Luke 13 Jesus calls the people to repent and his teachings were so much like John's that after John's execution the people, and even Herod himself, seem to have thought John had been raised from the dead. (See Mattew 12:33,34. 23:1-33 Luke 13:3,5 Matthew 14:1,2 Mark 6:14-16 & Luke 9:7-9)

We know from the Gospels that Jesus held John the Baptist in very high regard indeed and on one occasion when speaking to the people in the wilderness who had come to hear John, he asks them who the had come to see; "A prophet?" Jesus asks; and then replies;

Yes, I tell you...and far more than a prophet. This is the man concerning whom it is written, 'Look! I myself am sending forth my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way ahead of you!' Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist....and if you want to accept it, he himself is Elijah who is destined to come. (matthew 11:2-14)

The ancient prophets were held in very high regard, but here Jesus was saying that John was far greater than any of them. In fact, when he told the people "among those born of women there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist," surely Jesus was including himself.

Here we have a clear indication then that Jesus though John was even greter than himself, or at least as great, yet Jesus is supposed to have been conceived by Mary through God's Holy Spirit. If Jesus was the son of God, why did he believe John was as great as him, if not greater?

Again, I am not saying I have found the "truth" about Jesus, just that the question of the Virgin Birth and Jesus being the Son of God is not as cut and dried as JW's and other "Christians" are led to believe and I would dearly appreciate you comments. My so-called JW "brothers" and Elders just labled me "Apostate," when I raised these questions with them, but were unable to provide answers, so I'm hoping to have better luck here.

Steve J

15

Virgin Birth

by bite me in

how/what does the wts teach about the birth of jesus?

do they deny or not teach the virgin birth?

ignor it?

Steve J

Just found this in Geza Vermes "Jesus the Jew":

A final argument directly in favour of the paternity of Joseph is that the Ebionites, the Palestinian Judeo-Christians whom the Gentile Church declared heretics, accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but maintained that his conception was a natural one and that he was his parents natural son....(The Ebionites) divorced from the main Church at a very early stage, whilst apparently the story of the virgin birth was still under debate. (Page 190)

The evidence for Jesus' natural birth continues to grow then.

Steve J

15

Virgin Birth

by bite me in

how/what does the wts teach about the birth of jesus?

do they deny or not teach the virgin birth?

ignor it?

Steve J

Interesting site Sylvia.

Thanks

Steve J

15

Virgin Birth

by bite me in

how/what does the wts teach about the birth of jesus?

do they deny or not teach the virgin birth?

ignor it?

Steve J

Correction. Mark was the earliest gospel...Sorry!

15

Virgin Birth

by bite me in

how/what does the wts teach about the birth of jesus?

do they deny or not teach the virgin birth?

ignor it?

Steve J

Hi JC,

I always appreciate your comments and you make some very good points, but I'm affraid I lack your kind of faith and can only understand things from my perspective. I'm not saying my comments are correct, but I do think they raise interesting questions that deserve further investigation.

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.

On its own this is a very good point, but when we take into consideration that the Gospel of Philip denies the Virgin Birth in the following quote, it raises serious doubts.

Some say Mary conceived by Holy Spirit. They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled...And the Lord would not have said "My father who is in heaven" unless he had another father, but he would simply have said "my Father." (Philip II,3.25 The Nag Hammadi Library page 143)

We must also remember that the gospels were aimed mainly at the Gentiles and among the Greeks and Romans, the cult of the Virgin was very popular indeed. In fact, stories of the Virgin Birth can be traced back to early Semetic manuscripts, and seems to have had its origins in ancient Mesopotamia. But in Greek mythology, Zeus in particular, was belived to have had many lovers among godesses and mortals alike and some of the many women loved by Zeus gave birth to the heroic demi-gods. Therefore, the idea of Jesus being the result of a union between Yahweh and Mary, the virgin, would not have been out of place among the 1st. cent Gentile nations.

To the Jews though, and no doubt to Jesus himself, this idea would have been abhorrent. Why? Because it would have reminded them of the account in Genesis 6, where the angelic sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive, so they materialized and had sexual relations with them. The resulting offspring were the Nephelim and the angels responsible were punished by being put in "eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day". (Jude 6)

If therefore, Yahweh saw fit to punish his angelic sons for having sexual unions with women, its hardly likely that he would do the same himself, even if it was by means of His Holy Spirit.

As mentioned previously, Jesus' line, according to Jeremiah was cursed and that Ezekiel 21:26 records Yahweh's words:

Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. a ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no (ones) until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him. (NWT)

This suggests there was no need for the Messiah to have been of Davidic descent at all.

If Jesus was God's son, the very circumstances of his miraculous birth would have given him the "legal right" without him having to be a descendant of David. Yahweh himself had said of the Messiah's rulership; This will not be the same. The Messiah therefore, need not have been a royal king. Why then did Matthew go to all the trouble of tracing Jesus' ancestry through Joseph, his step-father's cursed line, when he could have just as easilly have stated; Jesus was the son of God, conceived by holy spirit. Surely this would have provided more legal right than any ancestry?

If Joseph wasn't Jesus' natural father would the Davidic bloodline have passed to him anyway?

Its also interesting that most scholars suggest that Luke was the earliest gospel and Matthew and Luke draw heavilly on this and from a document they know as Q. Mark though, contains no mention of the circumstances of Jesus' birth.

Again, I am not saying these conclusions are correct, but I certainly believe that the argument against the Virgin Birth is strong and in my mind, if Jesus was just an ordinary man like you and I, then this would make his sacrifice much more powerful than if he was the son of God. As the son of God, he would have been assured of a resurrection, but as a man there would always have been an element of doubt in his mind, no matter how much he believed he was right, and as William Shakespeare put it in Hamlets famous speech;

But that dread of something after death, The undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us bear those ills we have, than to fly to others we know not of. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all...

The thought of an ordinary man being willing to undergo such an awfull death as crucifixtion, and to take the sin of the world on his shoulders for the sake of his fellow humans, is very pwerful indeed. To me, possibly much more powerful than if Jesus was indeed the son of God.

Steve J

15

Virgin Birth

by bite me in

how/what does the wts teach about the birth of jesus?

do they deny or not teach the virgin birth?

ignor it?

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