VIRGIN BIRTH

Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth,
but also argue he was descended from David.  This overlooks
that if virgin born, Jesus' 'father' Joseph, albeit
descended from David, would have had no connection with
his conception, and his only human connection would have
been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic
line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of this
descent - Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe of
Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born,
could not therefore be of Davidic descent and could not
be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore,
this would contradict all the N.T statements that Jesus was
a descendent of David - Matt 1:1, 12:23, 15:22, Mark 10:47,
Rom 1:3, Rev 5:5.  NB. Jesus didn't take on 'David's line'
through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom 1:3 makes
it quite clear that Jesus was of  David's 'seed' (semen).
So there is a problem; Jesus was either of David's line -
but that means he wasn't virgin born (ie. Joseph having to
have been responsible for his conception), or he was virgin
born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line
(because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she
was not of the Davidic line) - so he couldn't have been
the Messiah/Christ as the N.T teaches.
NB. The virgin-birth story is only found in 2 of the 27
N.T writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the
part that relates the infancy was written quite separately,
and added to the main story that begins in 3:1 (Note how 3:1
opens as a commencement here). Even the Catholic Jerusalem
Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story
added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew,
eg. (i) Luke  has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius
(2:2,3-7), whilst Matt has it in the time of Herod, but the
rule of these two never coincided or overlapped.  There is
no substance in the argument that the Ramsay Inscription
regarding Quirinius as dummvir 'proves' he was governor in
Herod's time, (ii) Matthew states that the family fled from
Judea immediately to Egypt (2:4-14) and stayed there;  Luke
has the family calmly going to Jerusalem in Judea after the
birth and then up to Galilee (2:21-22,39).
The only reason that Matt's author seems to have the story
is because he misunderstood Isa 7:14 that he read as messianic
(which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it
doesn't). This is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king
Ahaz that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her
baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over
(7:14-17). There is NOTHING messianic about it at all.
In this, the child was to be called Emmanuel meaning 'God
with us', but the name 'Jesus' (in fact the Greek for the
Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation',  so Jesus was
therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and therefore did
not fulfil this 'prophesy'; however Matt's author misunder
-stood this and therefore couldn't have been the apostle of
that name as he was not a Palestinian Jew (nor an eyewitness
as he had to use Mark to write his Gospel). Isa 8:3-4 says
how Isaiah went and then impregnated his wife and the prophesy
is again made saying that before the child could even talk,
Syria would by smashed by Assyria.
Therefore it appears Isa 7:14 relates to Isaiah's own wife/child
and does not have any messianic connotations. In fact there is
nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman
would conceive. He does NOT say that a girl who would give
birth would still be a virgin at/after the conception.
The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' -
the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the 2nd
century BCE for the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora.
However, it is not a good translation in some parts, eg.
in the case of Daniel, the Jews would not use it.
The Hebrew word in Isa 7:14 for the woman/'virgin' is
"almah" and means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is
in the LXX that it is rendered 'virgin' and there is the
additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn't even
necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but "denotes
fullness or the like - fully developed".  The word actually
used here has nothing to do with the virgin state. As the
Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Pales
-tinian Jews (ie. the apostles) or they would have obviously
used the Hebrew text and not made such errors.   Matt makes
other errors, eg. in 27:9-10 he says he is quoting Jeremiah,
but in fact he's quoting Zechariah 11:12-13. There are
other examples of this.
It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Pal-
estinian Jews and in the case of Mark's author there has
to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in
view of the historical, chronological, geographical and
theological errors he makes about first cent. Palestine.
But this is where it continues to  be  manifestly  absurd.
Jesus was supposedly a true Jew - a direct descendent of
Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish Messiah, the
Son of  David  (Matt  21:9),  the 'lion of the tribe of
Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Test-
ament,  he quoted the GREEK LXX version !  Furthermore,
in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is
quoting would not support the argument he is making, ie.
because of the LXX's inaccuracies. In Mark 7:1-23 Jesus
does this, but although it seems the LXX would support the
point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original
would not. So we are asked to believe that Jesus - a true
Hebrew Jew - chose to use the Greek translation of the
Old Testament, and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that
he was using a passage that in reality was defective and
the original would say something completely different, and
be quite inappropriate for his argument,  but also, accord-
ing to the  Gospels,  he floored his orthodox Jewish oppo-
nents with this - a mistranslation of their own scriptures
- and they didn't challenge this!!! The fact is, therefore,
Jesus could not have spoken what the Gospels reports, and
such sayings are put into his mouth by the Gospel writers
who being ignorant of Hebrew made their handiwork obvious.
The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus' brother) in
Acts 15 - he uses the LXX to support his argument, although
again, the Hebrew original says something quite different
and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews
in the audience didn't comment on this !!!
Who could believe any of this ????????