SEEDS OF A FIRST BORN SON
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 - If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
For Only the first born son shall has the rights to a Kingdom. Fearing such, the Pharaoh ordered:-
Exodus 1:15-22
Pharaoh Tells the Midwives to Kill All Hebrew Baby Boys
15 Then the king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 “When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth, look at the child when you deliver it. If it’s a boy, kill it, but if it’s a girl, let it live.”
17 However, the midwives feared God and didn’t obey the king of Egypt’s orders. They let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives. He asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”
19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women. They are so healthy that they have their babies before a midwife arrives.”
20 God was good to the midwives. So the people increased in number and became very strong. 21 Because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.
22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people to throw into the Nile every Hebrew boy that was born, but to let every girl live.
Muslims believe that Abraham sacrificed Ishmael rather than Isaac to the Hebrew god. Though the Bible (Genesis 22:2) mentioned Isaac's name as follows:
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
... we need to remember the Bible was written by Judeans (Israelites), and not Muslims, so naturally the Judeans wanted the singular honour to be that of Isaac rather than the son of a slave in Abraham's household.
But note the words thine only son which in itself betrayed the truth, because Ishmael could be such an 'only son', whereas Isaac was yet to be born.
Once Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons where there was no more 'only son'.
Note how the Judeans (from the line of Jacob and then Judah) marginalized Esau and his descendants in a ketuanan Israelite move, turning Edomites (descendants of Esau) from Jews into Arabs even though Esau and Jacob were twins of same parents, Isaac and Rebecca
According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.
Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.
Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.
The three Abraham religions do not dispute that Ishmael was born before Isaac, so Isaac could NOT be Abraham's 'only son'. But Ishmael was!
However the Judeo-Christian argument has been that Ishmael was the son of Hagar, a slave and a concubine who was not a free woman nor loved, and therefore could not be considered as Abraham's son, let alone 'only son'.
Thus, based on their flimsy partisan beliefs, they ruled out Ishmael as Abraham's 'only son'.
‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’???
So, hasn't Deuteronomy 21:15-17, a Hebrew law (not an Islamic one) been very very clear about the very legitimate status of Ishmael in the eyes of God as compared to Isaac's?
Now, it could well be that was how Abraham treated Ishmael, in accordance with Hebraic laws, but leave it to those prejudiced Israelite authors who wrote bout Isaac being Abraham's 'only son' some 1300 years after Abraham passed away, effectively to change Ishmael status and to confer upon Isaac the honour of being Abraham's sacrifice to their Hebrew god.
see if you believe the above Christian crap where the descendants of Ishmael in trusting in good deeds would be in bondage to sin and rejected by (presumably the Christian) god
Thus by Judean 'creative' biblical composition, David enjoyed the position of firstborn, even though he was the youngest of Jesse's eight sons. By David's deliberately 'created' eminent birth, he was 'conferred' a status which then deemed him fit to be King of Israel - all conveniently written by David's men (not God).
Richard Elliott Friedman, a biblical scholar and the Ann & Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia was one of at least two (Jewish) biblical authors who told us what had likely happened to Isaac or Ishmael. The other biblical scholar has been Tzemah Yoreh.
Putting aside for a moment the argument whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was the human sacrifice for a while, Friedman wrote his seven reasons why he believes Abraham killed his son at the sacrificial altar, as follows:
sorry son, all Hebrew first born automatically belongs to YHWH and He wants you now
1. In the original sources that come to make up the Torah, Gen 22 is attributed to an author from the Northern Kingdom, nicknamed “E” because he refers to God as Elohim, in contrast to “J” who refers to God as Jehovah, or Yahweh in contemporary use. In Gen 22:1-10, God is called Elohim, but suddenly an “angel of Yahweh” appears to save Isaac. 2. Gen 22:11-15, when Isaac is rescued by the Angel of Yahweh, also discusses how Abraham names the site after Yahweh in his honor. 3. In 22:16, “he” (is this the angel or Elohim?) praises Abraham because “you did this thing and didn't withhold your son.” What?!? This seems to describe a moment after which Isaac had been killed. It could refer, of course, to Abraham’s willingness, but it could also mean that he did it.
4. The story concludes with Abraham returning home, without any mention of Isaac. Tzemah Yoreh confirmed the above oddity of 2 going out but only one returning. 5. In all of the other writings attributed to “E,” Isaac never again shows up. In fact, the traditions about Isaac even in the other texts are pretty meager compared to Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph. 6. Exodus 24, also from E, presents the story of a revelation at Mount Horeb which has multiple parallels with Gen 22, except that none are found in v. 11-15. 7. There are some midrashic stories that say that Isaac was sacrificed. I personally consider this to be pretty weak evidence since the editing of the Torah took place long before midrashim start showing up on this story, but it nevertheless represents the idea that at least for some, the idea of God actually asking that Abraham sacrifice Isaac is not out of the question. Tzemah Yoreh added:
In verse 12, after staying Abraham’s knife-wielding hand in mid-air, the angel of God tells the father of monotheism, “I now know you fear God because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
That phrase, “have not withheld your son,” “could indicate Abraham was merely willing to sacrifice his son, or that he actually did so.” One hint that it may have been the latter is contained in the names for God used in the story. The Biblical text calls the God who instructs Abraham to sacrifice his son “Elohim”. Only when the “angel of God” leaps to Isaac’s rescue does God’s name suddenly change to the four-letter YHWH, a name Jews traditionally do not speak out loud. Elohim commands the sacrifice; YHWH stops it. But it is once again Elohim who approves of Abraham for having “not withheld your son from me.” These sorts of variations, rampant throughout the Bible, have led scholars to conclude that different names for God are used by different storylines and editors.
Indeed, Isaac is never again mentioned in an Elohim storyline. In fact, if you only read the parts of Isaac’s life that use the name Elohim, you don’t have to be a Bible scholar to see the story as one in which Isaac is killed in the sacrifice and disappears completely from the Biblical story. Not that the YHWH portions make much of an effort to bring him back to life either. Indeed, Isaac seems to fade after the sacrifice, with his life story told in just one chapter, compared to more than a dozen chapters for both Abraham and Jacob.
So based on Friedman's and Yoreh's analyses, the author of J changed the biblical narration by inserting a J tale to show that an angel saved Isaac (or Ishmael) at the very last minute. The aim of the redaction was to reflect subsequent (1300 years later) Judean rejection of child sacrifice.
If we read the Old Testament we would discover that the Hebrew god liked human sacrifice, preferably burnt in a ceremony called olah, with the most notorious being Jephthat sacrificing his daughter to YHWH (Judges 11:29-40) and the most numerous being either all the first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29) or those burnt by King Josiah - And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem - (2 Kings 23:20).
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle - Samuel 18:1-4 (KJV).
David suspected to be a ‘mamzer’ (Bastard) - Not the First Born Son...
David was born to a very prominent family. Yishay, David’s father was among the four people that the reason of their death is described: ‘because of the serpent’, the sin of Adam. Otherwise, they were so clean from sin, that there was no reason for them to die. (The other three are: Benjamin, Amram-Moses father, and Kilav- King David’s son).
The Talmud tells us that wherever Yishay was going, he was escorted by delegations of thousands of people, in his honor. (Yevamot 76).
BUT..
David was the youngest of eight sons, born to Yishay and Nitzevet. After his seventh son, Yishay was once again not certain he is allowed to be with Nitzevet. (-Explanation below)
The Israelites are prohibited to marry a husband of the Moab nation (even a convert), as the Bible states in the Book of Devarim (23): “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall never enter the assembly of the Lord. Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he [the people of Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you.”
Although the law was decided that only to marry a ‘Moabite husband’ is prohibited, after the seventh son Yishay was again not certain about that (women were allowed, since it was not their duty to bring over the bred and water), therefore decided to stop his marital relations with Nitzevet and married another woman.
The second wife was a righteous woman, and let Nitzevet be withYishay in the night without his knowledge.
– That is the reason David was despised by his brothers, who suspected him to be a child out of the marriage, ‘bastard’. (His status is ‘Ben Temurah’, a person who is born, from an action of procreation while the man thinks about a different woman than the one he is at that time.).
When Shmuel the prophet searches for the future king of Israel at the house of Yishay, the latter doesn’t even bother to present David. One by one Samuel rejects the seven brothers, then he needs to encourage Yishay (Samuel 1, 16) “And Samuel said to Jesse, “Are these all the young men?” And he said, “The youngest still remains, and behold, he is tending the sheep.” And Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and bring him, for we shall not sit down until he comes here.“” – In it’s Hebrew form “עוד הקטן” is also translated “there is a small one” “not important”…. at that time David is twenty eight years old..
Thus by creative biblical composition, David enjoyed the position of firstborn, even though he was the youngest son. Thus he was fit to be King of Israel, as was conveniently written by men and not God.
So naturally we have those Judean BTN writers (wakakaka) with Psalm 89:20-29 (KJV) informing us how God viewed David:
20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him. 22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. 23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him. 24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted. 25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. 26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. 27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. 28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. 29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
That’s how and not why the Hebrew God inexplicably loved Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, cheating-Jacob over Esau, Ephraim over Manasseh, and of course the most evil man ever in the Bible, David the adulterous traitorous murderer and 8th son of Jesse of Bethlehem - all courtesy of the pro David bible writers.
Cain & Abel...
This is similar to the story of Adams’s two boys; Cain Qaabiil , who killed his brother Abel Haabiil . He did that because of a woman, their sister. The story is reported in the Qur’an when Allah said, “Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam.” (al-Maa’ida, 27) That means that Allah had urged Prophet Mohammed to go and tell the story to his people, especially those who were believers in the books of Allah. Some of them would be jealous of him and would plan and extend their hands to murder him. Tell them the story of Adam’s son and what his reward was. He was banished in this world and the hereafter. Prophet Mohammed was asked to tell the true story so that people would consider and remember. That way, they would not believe some silly stories that were circulated for pleasure purposes. According to the interpretations of al- Nasfy, Prophet Mohammed was strongly advised not to be negligent of people’s jealous intentions.
An Act Of Selfishness...
Ibn ‘Abbaas was quoted to have said that Eve used to give birth to twins, always a boy and a girl. She gave birth five hundred times. The first twin was Cain and his sister Iqliima. After two years she gave birth to Abel and his sister Leoda. When they became teenagers, Allah ordered Adam to marry off Cain’s sister to Abel, and Abel’s sister to Cain. Abel agreed to such an arrangement, but Cain refused to marry Leoda. He would not agree that his sister Iqliima, the more attractive than Leoda, would marry Abel. Adam suggested that each of the boys should offer a sacrifice. The one whose sacrifice was accepted would marry Iqliima. Abel took a fat heifer and milk and butter from the best of his sheep, while Cain took the worst grain spikes from his farm. They headed to the top of the mountain. On the way, Cain said to himself that he would not care if Allah accepted his sacrifice or not! Abel would never marry Iqliima. On the other hand, Abel said to himself that he would be satisfied with Allah’s satisfaction and would accept His verdict. A fire came down from heaven and Abel’s sacrifice was accepted. They went down the mountain, but each went his way. A few hours later Cain approached his brother while he was attending his sheep. He told Abel that he would kill him, “Behold! They each presented a sacrifice to Allah. It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: “Be sure I will slay you.” “Surely, said the former, “Allah does accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. (al-Maa’ida, 27)
Cain said: I will kill you!
Abel asked: Why?
Cain said: Because Allah has accepted your sacrifice, not mine. You will marry my beautiful sister while I marry your ugly sister! People would talk and say that you were better than me. Your children would despise mine, and there was no way in the world that I would allow that to happen.
Abel said: Allah accepts the sacrifice of those who are righteous. He accepted mine because I was good in heart, and rejected your because you were not good in heart.
Abel came to his brother Cain and said: "I want to marry your sister."
Cain said: "I am older than you and my father made me in charge of the family."
Abel said: "Listen, you are not better than me. Let us offer a sacrifice and he whose sacrifice is accepted is better and should have the choice."
Cain said: "OK. You got yourself a deal."
Ibn ‘Abbaas said that Adam was in Mekka when Cain killed his brother, Abel. Trees would carry thorns, fruits became sour, water became bitter and the earth surface became dusty. Adam took off to India repeating to himself the following stanza of Arabic poetry:
The earth and its habitants have changed The face of earth is dusty Every taste and color is changed All beautiful faces are no longer so How come I have not shed heavy tears For Abel who is now resting in his tomb I will spend the rest of my life in grief I will not have a moment of rest
He said that wild animals used to trust Adam’s two boys. However, when the murder took place wild animals became shy of humans, the wind blew up and the atmosphere became dark. Adam was performing his pilgrimage when he noticed that. He said to Jibriil: What is going on?
Jibriil said: This was a result of your son’s misfortune. Cain has killed his brother, Abel.
Adam cried and never laughed for the next hundred years. It was also said that he had not touched Eve after that crime.
Ibn ‘Abbaas added that when Cain killed his brother he did not know what to do with the body. Allah sent the raven that began to dig and move the dirt around in order to show Cain how to bury his brother’s decomposed body. Qataada said that a raven killed another raven and began to cover it with dirt. Ibn ‘Abbaas said that a raven came to the corpse of a dead one and began to cover it with dirt. al-Hasan said that Allah sent a raven that began to dig the dirt with its peak and, thererfore, Cain got the idea of burying his brother’s corpse. Only Allah knows the truth.
Cain said to himself, “Wow to me! I am not even as smart as a raven.” That indicated that Cain was sad and regretted his action. Ibn Munabbih, however, said that Cain carried the body of his brother for three days without knowing what to do with it, until Allah sent him the raven. al-Kalby said that Cain carried the body for a year, but Mujaahid said that he carried it and walked around in the country for a hundred years. al-Kalbi said that Cain’s remorse was for carrying the body for a long time, not for killing his brother. If he regretted the murder, Cain’s repentance would have been accepted.
al-Hasan Ibn Fadhl said that Cain did regret the killing, but at that time people were not forgiven when they expressed repentance. They were punished for their crimes, regardless. He quoted the story of those who worshipped the calf and regretted that. They were punished by being led to commit suicide.
Forgiveness for showing repentance was a privilege only granted to Muslims. It was reported that when he killed his brother, Cain was told that he would
be scared and would trust no one for ever. He would think that anyone he met had intentions to kill him. It was mentioned that his face turned black.
When Adam saw him he asked: Where is your brother, Abel?
Cain said: How do I know?
Adam said: You killed him! That is why your face has turned black.
Out of fear, Cain took off aimlessly. Anyone who saw him would cast a stone at him. One of his children saw him and threw a stone at him and killed him. It was said that Allah had ordered the wind to carry him to the hottest spot on earth so that he would suffer during summer. Then the wind would carry Cain to the coldest spot so that he would suffer during winter time. It was also mentioned that Iblis came to him in a form of a human being.
Iblis asked Cain: Do you know why your brother’s sacrifice was accepted?
Cain said: No.
Iblis said: Well, he worshiped fire, and that is why the fire consumed his sacrifice. You need to kneel down to fire.
Cain kneeled down and therefore became the first human to worship fire.
Cursed Of Cain (The First Born SON!!!)
Mohammed Ibn Ali al-Tarmathy said that Cain was created from the power of a seed from the fruit that Adam ate from the forbidden tree. That is why the boy was born corrupt. He fathered Ya’juuj and Ma’juuj who would needlessly fill the world with sins before it would come to its end. Cain would be in Hell forever, together with Iblis. The people of Hell would say, "And the unbelievers will say ‘Our Lord! Show us those among Jinns and men, who misled us. We shall crush them beneath our feet so that they become the vilest.” (Fussilat, 29) What they meant by saying “the Jinns” was Iblis, may Allah curse him. By “men” they meant Cain who was jealous and would be in Hell for ever. This account was reported in the interpretations of al-Imaam al-Nasfi.
Temptation, The Seduction...
“Here is what really happened in the Garden of Eden. The Word says that Eve was beguiled by the serpent. She was actually seduced by the serpent….He was so close to being human that his seed could, and did mingle with that of the woman and cause her to conceive. When this happened, God cursed the serpent.” —William Branham1
The Seduction. Branham explains, “He seduced her [Eve] and by her did Satan have a child vicariously. Cain bore the full spiritual characteristics of Satan and the animalistic (sensual, fleshly) characteristic of the serpent.”5
Branham (1909–65), a proponent of Oneness theology,2 taught the so-called serpent seed interpretation of Genesis 3, with adherents of this view often citing Genesis 3:15 in support of their position: “And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (ESV).
The crux of the serpent seed view is that Eve and Satan engaged in sexual relations. Consequently, sin is viewed as sexual in nature, as opposed to the traditional interpretation of the fall as sin being disobedience to God. In addition to Branham, other serpent seed interpretations of Genesis 3:15 are found in the teachings of the Christian Identity movement, as well as, for instance, in the teachings of Arnold Murray (1929–2014) of Shepherd’s Chapel and also the Unification Church.
The Identity movement’s serpent seed interpretation clearly leads to racism, as one expert explains: “As early as the mid-1940s, Identity preachers were building a new doctrine: the Serpent Seed theory. It is a fairly simple and straightforward belief: Jews are the physical descendants of a sexual union between ‘Mother Eve’ and ‘the serpent’ (Gen. 3). The serpent is variously identified as either Satan, or a demonic representative of Satan. As such, Jews are literally ‘Children of the Devil.’ Most Identity believers claim the serpent was a physical manifestation of Satan himself.”3 Furthermore, Identity teachers add that Cain is the offspring of a union of the serpent and Eve, while Abel is said to be the result of the union of Adam and Eve.4
A Miraculous Birth of A First Born SON...
Both Muslims & Christians believes in Mary being still a virgin when she conceived her first son Yehoshua or Yeshua (otherwise known by his Greek name, Jesus).
Additionally, Mary was also completely blameless from the Original Sin by virtue of the merits of her son. What did/does this mean? Well, Mary, rather than being cleansed after a sin, was completely prevented from contracting Original Sin in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus, to be born as the Savior of the human race.
“And (mention) when the angels said, ‘O Mary! Indeed God has chosen you, and purified you, and has chosen you above all other women of the worlds. O Mary! Be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those bow (in prayer).’” (Quran 3:42-43)
She was also made by God an example to follow, as He said:
“And (God sets forth the example for those who Believe) of Mary, the daughter of Heli, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into it through Our Angel (i.e., Gabriel), and she believed in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Quran 66:12)
On testaments of the virgin birth, Christians refer to the New Testament gospels of both Mathew and Luke, where in the former an angel came to Joseph to explain 'stuff' to him, whereupon:
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus
- Matthew - 1:24-25
'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son' means that Joseph did NOT have sex with her until Jesus was born.
But in Luke, the revelation was a conversation between Mary and the angel Gabriel.
And in that conversation, Mary admitted to her own 'virginity' when she asked:
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God - Luke 1:34-35
But predating the Gospels of Matthew and Luke was that of Mark, which does NOT bear any reference to the 'virgin' birth.
Most biblical researchers hold that Mark's was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70 CE, and that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed later sometime in the 80 CE or 90 CE.
Based on similar wordings, plus the gospels being in Greek(don't tell us each apostle translated from Aramaic into Greek on his own?), etc etc, biblical scholars believe there were lots of inter dependency in the latter two, especially on writings of Mark, meaning lots of copying.
So how did Matthew and Luke sourced information of the 'virgin birth' if Mark did not touch on that?
What predated(s) all the New Testaments Gospel was the Book of Isaiah in the Old (Hebraic) Testament, which informs us that during the reign of the evil King Jehoahaz of Judah (also known as Ahaz), the prophet Isaiah informs King Ahaz that his enemies will be destroyed before a child born to a young woman in his retinue is old enough "to refuse evil and know good"; this child, he says, will be named Immanuel:
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings
- Isaiah 7:10-16
That was the first mention of the so-called 'virgin' and her birth to a son whose name was Immanuel - another church name for Jesus. And biblical scholars say that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Isaiah in writing about the 'virgin birth' in their own gospels. But wait, the spoilsports biblical scholars also generally agree that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah, namely, 'almah', means 'a girl of childbearing age' and not necessary the word 'virgin' which should be 'bethula'.
Biblical scholars pointed out that in other parts of the Book of Isaiah, the prophet used the virgin word, 'bethula', several times but in other context (not about virgin birth). These show Isaiah knew the difference between 'almah' and'bethula' and did not make a mistake in the verse Isaiah 7:14, as some Christians claimed (hopefully) Isaiah might have.
Also, scholars note that Isaiah was talking about his own immediate circumstances in the year 735 BC, not the distant future when Jesus was to be born. In Isaiah the Immanuel prophecy had an immediate aim, but Matthew used it to 'find' patterns of God's dealings with Israel rather than a single and specific fulfilment.
Thus Isaiah 7:14 was NOT a source of the virgin birth as the Church would like us to believe. In fact the disappointing discovery for the Church was that there was no mention anywhere in the earlier books (Old Testament or in the first Gospel of Mark). Some biblical scholars said that Matthew and Luke could have been motivated to develop the concept of virgin birth because the Judeans (Jews) at that time, who were enemies of the new following of Yeshua ben Yosef, were mocking Mary as carrying an illegitimate (mamzer / bastard) baby, an 'bin Abdullah', so to speak.
Why is the First Sin called the "Sin of Adam" not the "Sin of Adam and Eve?"
Original Sin as you (hopefully) know is that first sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-7). It is clearly a sin that involved both of them. And yet, both in Scripture and Tradition when this sin is referred to formally by name it is called the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” It is also described as coming to us “through one man” not “through Adam and Eve” or “through a man and a woman.” Consider the following quotes from Scripture and then from the Catechism:
Like Adam, they [Israel] have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there. (Hosea 6:7)
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man….death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam…. (Rom 5:12, 14)
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)
All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man…. (CCC # 402)
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin….(CCC # 403)
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. (CCC # 404)
Why just Adam?
Now, to be sure, both Scripture and the Catechism describe the Sin as involving both Adam and Eve, but neither formally refer to it as the “Sin of Adam and Eve” but only, the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” Sin comes to us through Adam. Why is this?
Adam had been placed in the Garden and, even prior to Eve’s creation, been told to work the garden and keep it (Gen 2:15). Some translations say he is to work in and guard it. After the creation of Eve and at the moment of temptation we see that Eve has something of a long conversation with the devil wherein he spars with her to cause her to be tempted and ultimately to fall.
The headship of Adam – Scripture teaches of the headship of the husband in marriage (cf Eph 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1; Titus 5:2; Col 3:18). When God ordained marriage he stated that “A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall be one” (Gen 2:24). Hence it is the man who leads the marriage and is its head. But this makes him finally responsible for takes place in that marriage.
Now our modern age tends to think of headship in terms of privilege but Scripture speaks of it more in terms of responsibility and service (cf Mark 10:41-45; Lk 12:48). Thus the headship of the husband brings to him a final responsibility for what happens under his roof. This does not mean his wife is without guilt, any more than Eve was without guilt. But headship does mean that the head has to answer for what happens.
Now during this time where is Adam? He would seem to be far off since nothing is said by him. But the text quite remarkably discloses that he was standing right next to her the whole time she converses with Satan! (Gen 3:6).
Why this silence from Adam? One would expect Adam to say to Satan, “Why are you speaking with my wife?….What are you saying to her?……Why are you trying to mislead her….?” One would further expect Adam to retort what Satan was saying and defend his wife from this temptation and error. Surely Eve should not have had to answer the Devil all on her own. She does well to begin but then grows weak under the onslaught. Why does Adam not step in to protect and augment his wife’s strength? Why does he not assist her in this struggle and help defend against this threat? Is his silence not part of the first sin? Is his omission not integral to the fall of them both?
Adam had an obligation to rebuff Satan and guard his wife and the garden. But he is passive. As head of the house he has the first responsibility to defend his household from all error, sin and threat. Eve should not have had to face the devil and answer him alone. He was worse than useless, his silence gave strength to Satan’s arguments. Eve is not without sin but Adam has failed miserably to assist Eve and provide the support she needs and deserves.
Death Of the First Born Son...
On the night of his arrest, Jesus was said to have gone outside to the Garden of Gethsemane to prostrate on the ground to pray to God (“My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me” — Matthew 26:38). Jesus was also said to have cried out ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ while on the cross. If Jesus is the Lord or God in disguise or the Son of God (which also makes him God), why would he need to pray to God and demonstrate desperation?
In Matthew 3:13-17, it says as follows:
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a follower of John. They also agree that many followers of John later became followers of Jesus. Mark, Luke and John also imply the same thing although there are some contradictions and inaccuracies in the story when you start comparing all four Gospels.
Now, John was a Jew, as was Jesus and all their followers (John’s and Jesus’). So there is no reference whatsoever to Christians, who did not yet exist at that time.
Hence the entire event and references in the Gospels are talking about Jews, not Christians. Jesus was a Jew, as was his ‘guru’, John, and so were James and Peter who continued with the teachings of Jesus after his death. And the church of Jesus was only concerned about Jews and not Gentiles. In fact, there is a reference in the Gospels where Jesus turned a woman away because she was not a Jew. This is mentioned in Matthew 15:21-28.
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
It was not until Saul a.k.a. Paul that the teachings of Jesus were spread to non-Jews. And this was the main conflict between Paul and the rest of the Jesus Movement such as Peter and James. And that resulted in Paul getting ‘ousted’ from the Movement — so he migrated to Rome to continue to preach his ‘new’ teachings to non-Jews.
He wanted the Jews to return to the correct teachings of Judaism (I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel). And this is what Peter and James also wanted to do. It was Paul who created this new religion called Christianity. And that was why Peter and James were against Paul.
For example, the Trinity was not the teachings of Jesus but came about more than 300 years later during the time of Constantine. And this is the foundation of the Roman Church, which many ‘Christians’ at that time did not accept. But then those who opposed the doctrine of the Trinity were put to death — so the dissidents were eventually wiped out while the Roman Church survived and flourished under the patronage of Constantine and those who came after him.
On the night of his arrest, Jesus was said to have gone outside to the Garden of Gethsemane to prostrate on the ground to pray to God (“My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me” — Matthew 26:38). Jesus was also said to have cried out ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ while on the cross. If Jesus is the Lord or God in disguise or the Son of God (which also makes him God), why would he need to pray to God and demonstrate desperation?
The Trinity turns Jesus into a God. But Jesus never claimed that. In fact, Jesus was baptised by John and became his follower and not the other way around. No doubt the Resurrection is explained as Jesus dying for our sins. If that is true then Jesus should have known this and he would not have shown signs of desperation by crying out ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’
We are told that when Jesus was arrested all his disciples ran away to safety and even denied that they were with Jesus. But then the Gospels relate in great detail what happened during the Crucifixion as if the ‘eyewitnesses’ were all there. If no one was around then who were these eyewitnesses?
Flavius Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews, refers to John, as do the four Gospels. And John is central to the story while Jesus is mentioned as John’s follower, contrary to what the Gospels say.
An academic study of that period must include all the historical reports and not just the Gospels, which understandably would be biased. And other than Josephus, none of the other so many historians mentioned Jesus. It is as if he never existed.
If Jesus was a great leader of his time, as was John, and since whenever Jesus travelled from place to place a ‘multitude’ followed him around, then he would have been significant enough to be mentioned by all these historians. But he was not.
You cannot have had such a great event like that not being mentioned by all those historians when they reported in great detail even lesser and not so significant events of that time.