Support BFA

Leave a Reply

12 Comments
  • Here is my problem. Mary never spoke about the birth of YHUSHA as being special, Nor did Jesus/YHUSHA. When 12 he is left behind and when asked why they, his parents are mystified by his answer. Later, during his ministry his mother and brothers/sisters come to take him away as crazy but he rebukes them and tells his followers that they are now his family. I look for first person explanations as the gospels are a series of contradictions on the birth event and as they were written long after but unknown authors, how can they know what marry and joseph did, said or experienced in sleep. Much of the bible is written like this, with sudden unexplained background info… So lets keep it simple, if Joseph wasnt the biological fathers who sperm got marry pregnant they YHWA didnt keep his OT promises. Asside from all the two and fro of what YHWA can and cannot do he promised the messiah via Davids seed. Same as david is of the seed of Abraham and all are of the promise made to Adam in Genesis. I also dont know if its a matter of salvation as like the trinity, YHUSHA never taught it, and what he did teach was the OT and repentance in keeping it and never setting it asside. In fact, Id argue he made it harder to keep, if not impossible without the indwelling presence of YHWA.

  • An important question I believe that relates to this, is what is the Holy Spirit/Ghost? Personally I don’t believe the Holy Spirit/Ghost is a personage but the word/plan/mind/way of YHWH. On this page I put together I share some resources that goes with that belief https://seekingyhwh.com/resources/holy-spirit/ .

  • I love the extra learning and knowledge, and if you aren’t on Nehemiah’s Wall, the Pearls Plus is worth it. However, I think the totality of Scripture is supposed to be understood from a common sense perspective, and, specifically speaking about the Virgin birth, there is too much sin and questions that come if she was not conceived by Supernatural Means.

    First, we know that Joseph was not the Father. What he was considering to do BEFORE he had the dream, and knowing what would be done to her, one could make the argument that he thought she was either covering for someone who raped her, or (going with the young girl meaning) that she wasn’t old enough to know she was committing adultery, so Joseph was going to protect her from the literal punishment in the Torah being righteous enough to know if someone was willful.

    This leads us to one of 2 questions? Did Miriam get raped–a Sin, and use it to bring Messiah OR did God do special dispensation (Pope style) with 2 kids (an unknown father of a similar age who was a childhood friend) who didn’t know what they were doing a la Blue Lagoon/playing Doctor, not being of the age of Accountability–a sin of Adultery clothed in the ignorance of youth. Ignorance is not an excuse, but it would explain what Joseph would have been thinking before the dream and considered more Righteous for doing so. I doubt that Miriam was completely ignorant because she asks the Angel, “How can this be? I have not known a man.” So that option is really not an option, from a Common Sense perspective because that verse alone says she knew what knowing meant–pun intended.

    This also leads to Generational Sin, a la the blood of either the Rapist or the young, pre-pubescent lad, that is given through the blood of the father. So Messiah has Generational Sin, and therefore cannot be the Sin Offering. You see where this is going? In our eagerness to try to find common ground, we actually are worse off then where we started.

    To answer Nehemiah’s question of God breaking His Torah because of God “knowing” an engaged woman, I think the miracle is that she was impregnated without the “knowing” part because He’s God, therefore not breaking His Torah because he can create life outside the bounds of which we can. Nehemiah admits that he made Adam and Eve out of Clay, no sex involved. It is the bonding part that causes the physical oneness of Marriage or breaks the Marriage through breaking that bond through physical, emotional intimacy with another and causes the sin. the common sense explanation is that there was no intimacy involved. She said yes, the angel left, she was pregnant instantaneously. Now, Scripturally, and common sense wise, it is indefensible to say that she remained so because during the dream and after, it does say Joseph eventually took her as his wife and therefore consummated the marriage, but in accordance with the Torah after the birth of Y’shua. Also, common sense wise, it can be assumed that Joseph thought the pregnancy was Divine as the way he interpreted his dream because of the way he acted after, and his free nature of taking her as his wife afterwards. He would have been extremely hesitant, may have never even knew her if he still believed the other possibility.

    Now I could bring the physical evidence of Ron Wyatt as the nail in the coffin on how to interpret it, but I know everyone won’t believe the 24 Chromosomes blood count until it is seen by everyone, but just from a common sense perspective, the Messiah fulfilling the suffering servant and Sin Sacrifice of the Spring Feasts, he had to be born without Sin, and only 1 way is a common sense perspective on how that is achievable, whether you believe it or not.

    I do believe that the Naming was the important Part, but I think the virgin birth is part of that Naming because it was part of the Passover so we could say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was YeHoVAH and not an angel, YeHoVAH and not a Seraph. YeHoVAH stands in the Gap as He did in Egypt so that Death Passes Over, Ahmein.

  • Ruth — Moabite

    It seems more plausible to me that Ruth had been an Israelite !

    Why?

    Because

    1) Naomi went to escape famine in a land where she might have known people of her own background?

    2) Ruth 1:16 And Ruth saith, `Urge me not to leave thee–to turn back from after thee; for whither thou goest I go, and where thou lodgest I lodge; thy people is my people, and thy God my God.(YLT)
    This is a literal translation and makes sense in the way that Ruth seems to acknowledge the fact that Naomi’s people are also her people!! As such Naomi’s God is also her God!!

    And as such it does not violate Yehovah’s sayings and laws!!

    Ruth was an Israelite, who’s family migrated through possible previous famines into the land of Moab! After a generation Ruth had become a Moabite!!

    I think this is a much more realistic view on this story!!

    This does not negate the fact that Yehovah’s intention is to save Gentile people through his son Yeshua!!

  • I listened again tonight to Hebrew Matthew . Regarding the virgin birth, are you aware of the prayer recorded in Hertz Authorized Daily Prayer Book , pg. 813. A prayer to be said on the first night of Sukkot:

    May it be thy will, O Lord my Elohim and Elohim of my fathers, to let THY DIVINE PRESENCE ABIDE AMONG US. SPREAD OVER US THE CANOPY OF THY PEACE in recognition of the precept of the Tabernacle which we are now fulfilling, and whereby we establish in fear and love the unity of thy holy and blessed Name. O SURROUND US WITH THE PURE AND HOLY RADIANCE OF THY GLORY THAT IS SPREAD OVER OUR HEADS as the eagle over the nest he stirreth us: and thence BID THE STREAM OF LIFE FLOW IN UPON THY SERVANT (THY HANDMAID). And and seeing that I have gone forth from my house abroad and am speeding the way of thy commandments, ….
    [Capitalization added for emphasis by me]

    The services of Sukkot were repeated from the time of the Maccabees re-dedication (Hanukkah) of the Temple after defeating the Greeks. 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. If the services of Sukkot were known and the prayer recorded by Rabbi Hertz must have been known to Mary, therefore her response to the angel would be her recognition and knowledge of the prayer.

    Luke 1:31-38 31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Yeshua. 32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. 36 “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37 “For nothing will be impossible with Elohim.” 38 And Mary said, “BEHOLD THE MAIDSERVANT OF YHVH ; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

    Nine months after Hanukkah is the Appointed Time of Sukkot. This is likely the true birth of Yeshua. He came to dwell with us temporarily during His first coming.

    Wow! the information you and Nehemia are sharing is tremendous.

    Shalom and todah rabah!

  • I couldn’t agree more that the star of the show is the name Yeshua, YHVH saves. As we continue reading Matthew, we will see that Yeshua always points his disciples to the Father as the source of their salvation and not himself, according to his name. This is not surprising considering YHVH saved his people through all the judges of Israel like we see in 2Ki 13:5. Further evidence of YHVH alone as savior to his sons is found in Isa 43:3, Isa 45:1, Isa 49:26, Isa 63:8, and Jer 14:8, that echo the summation of Hos 13:4 and Isa 43:11, “besides me there is no savior.”
    I very much appreciated Nehemia’s explanation regarding “Immanuel” being a son of Y’shayahu. Further evidence of this idea for me is found in Isa 8:18, “Behold, I and the children whom [YHVH] has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from [YHVH] of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” This verse really speaks volumes of support.
    I also appreciated the discussions regarding Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. They led me to wonder about the other famous naming in the nearby verse of Isa 9:6. It occurred to me that although Hezekiah was believed to be Immanuel by some he is a much better fit for the person called “a wonder of council of a mighty god, a father of eternity, a prince of peace” for the following reasons. According to Kings II, he was undeniably great in the line of Judah’s kings. “He trusted in [YHVH], the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him.” (2Ki 18:5 NAS). Although Christianity has maintained this as a future prophecy about Yeshua, the verbs in ‎ יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ (Isa. 9:6) are all in the perfect (completed action) aspect, meaning the child was already born and given at the time of writing. Consider the following facts: 1. Hezekiah was born around 741 BCE. 2. His father king Achaz reigned approximately 733-716 BCE and ruled during these proclamations according to Isa 7:1. 3. King Shalmaneser V conquered Israel in 722 BCE and Hezekiah began his reign in 716 BCE. Hezekiah would already have been born during these proclamations and destined to rule while Judah was saved from capture like the Northern Kingdom. The proclamations of events in Isaiah chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 fit the events proclaimed regarding the naming of these children according to these timelines. If Hezekiah is not the child named in Isa 9:6, then who else was already alive that could fit this description?
    I followed Nehemia’s lead, read Luke 1:26-38, and found some interesting things. First, was an interesting comparison of verb tenses between Matthew and Luke and second, was some translation peculiarities. For the first matter, the verb in the Hebrew Matthew regarding Miriam’s pregnancy is in the Niphal perfect, meaning this passive voice action is already complete at the time of telling. “She was found” means she was already pregnant. In Luke, however, the verb used by the messenger to Miriam regarding her pregnancy is in the Greek future indicative “you will conceive in your womb.” The pregnancy spoken of in the future in Luke leads us to the events in Matthew that are accounted as being in the past. I found this very interesting in the chain of events.
    The second matter concerns the Greek genitive. In Biblical Hebrew the “definiteness” of the construct state affects the entire chain of back to back nouns. Either the entire chain is definite: “the __ of the ___” or indefinite: “a _____ of a _____.” There is no word ‘of’ in Hebrew. It is implied. There are only two ways for a construct chain to be definite, 1) the absolute noun (last noun in the chain) is definite by having the definite article or 2) the absolute noun is a proper noun (name). Although I am not a student of Greek I have heard/read that the Greek genitive case uses nouns back to back with an implied ‘of’ as well, like the construct state in Hebrew. However, it appears they can use their definite articles for each noun independently. Examples:
    ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης τῆς γῆς (Gen. 7:23 BGT) “upon a face of all of the earth”
    τριακοσίων πήχεων τὸ μῆκος τῆς κιβωτοῦ (Gen. 6:15 BGT) “three hundred cubits the length of the ark”
    So, why does this matter? The English translations for Luke 1 regarding the announcement of Yeshua’s birth don’t appear to match the Greek. For Greek, I use Bibleworks 10. I rely on their parsing of individual words when comparing to the English. The English in the NAS for Luk 1:32 states:
    “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David” for:
    οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, (Lk. 1:32 BGT)
    Going word by word according to BW10, it yields: – he – will be – large/great (adj.) – and – a son (n.) – highest (adj.) – will (he) be called/named – and – (he) will give – to him (dat.) – a lord (nom.) – the (nom.) – god (nom.) – the (acc.) – throne (acc.) – [of ] David (gen.) – the (gen.) – [of] father (gen.) – [of] his/him (gen.) –
    Using this as a guide, I would translate this verse as:
    “He will be great and will be called ‘a highest son’ and Lord the God will give to him the throne of David, the father of him.”
    So how did the English translators choose a construct/genitive case for two nouns to get “the Son of the Most High” from a noun without a definite article followed by an adjective with no definite article? This makes no sense. Following grammar rules should clearly give us ‘a highest son’ instead. The difference of course concerns the idea of Yeshua being the only son of god vice the evidence he is a highest son of many sons of gods. Consider the verses Mat 5:48 and Rom 8:19 while contemplating the following: Twice, in Matthew and Luke, Joseph is called a son of David. In this verse, Yeshua is clearly being called a son of David “the father of him.” We also see a clear translational stretch of the Greek words in order to call him the Son of God (the Most High). Considering last week’s discussions regarding genealogies, Yeshua is never called a son of David through his mother as a daughter of David despite the possibilities discussed. Being a rightful heir to the throne of David goes from father to son. The evidence of these words clearly shows that any right to the throne of David for Yeshua is through his father Joseph and not God being his father. Things that make you go, “Hmmmm…..”

  • Wow! A lot of questions about the child. Wondering in Luke, why Mary said “How can this be, seeing I know not a man?” Yehovah spoke the universe into being, could he not speak a child into a woman’s womb? Why the “babe leaped in her womb;” and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” when Mary entered the house?
    Many questions we hope will be answered. Is there a complete Hebrew manuscript of Luke? Is the manuscript of Matthew complete? Why was Mary so joyous when she recited the exaltation to Yehovah In Luke 1:46 to 51? My husband and I were both asking these questions during Part 2 Plus. Interested in the answers.

    • Re: “…seeing I know not a man?”
      That’s very important.

      People think that the English “virgin” is supposed to be Hebrew almah – young woman in Isaiah 7:14. Most people don’t consider Rebekah on this topic.

      And the d a m s e l [ = na‘arah nah-ar-aw’, a girl (from infancy to adolescence):— damsel, maid(-en), young (woman).] was very fair to look upon, a v i r g i n [ = beth-oo-law’; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state:— maid, virgin ], neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. (Genesis 24:16, KJV)

      So notice that damsel / narah in this verse 16 is associated with the same virgin / bethulah. It is important to see how YHVH uses His own language through the prophet Moses. Consider vs. 43:

      Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the v i r g i n [ = almah al-maw’: — damsel, maid, virgin ] cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink; (Genesis 24:43, KJV)

      Genesis chapter 24 shows us how YHVH through Moses uses all three Hebrew words to refer to one Hebrewess, Rebekah, during that same time frame of her life: that is, before she was married; before she had ever “known a man”; while she was still in the care of her parents (addressing all three related Hebrew words: bethulah; almah; narah). I hope this raises the interest level of readers in the reliability of a 1st century Hebrew author using his own native language among his contemporaries. Never mind the long journey of language and translations that sideline so many people from realizing that “salvation belongs to the Jews” (Yeshua haMashiach, Israel’s El that became King of all the Earth; John 4:24).

      So, this means that Isaiah used the Hebrew almah correctly and in context for a virgin just like the Torah that Isaiah would have known (Isa. 7:14/Gen. 24:16-43). Betulah = “having known no man”; virgin. Almah = both young woman before sex or after sex; young woman; maiden as defined by and used by YeHoVaH through His servant Moses. By the way, this is not the only place in the Tahnak that this use of Hebrew words occurs. So please consider finding them.

  • A virgin bore a son not a woman who committed adultery with God. Yehovah will not violate his own law. No man lay with her or knew her. A virgin conceived and a virgin did bear a son.
    Emmanuel “God with us” Yeshua. Yeshua said if you dont believe I am you will die in your sins. Before Abraham was I am.

    • The following is a copy of a reply to Tim by Reves Nava from the comments section of Gospel Pearls #2 PLUS from Nehemia’s Wall. It probably gives the best reply to your comments here that are similar to Tim’s concerns about the study of Hebrew Matthew regarding the gospels. Please go read the whole thing there because it fits here as well, in my opinion.

      Tim,
      It takes greater boldness to challenge traditional ideas by provoking us to think outside the box rather than to accept blindly, that is where Keith seems to be taking his stand.

      The Israelites were entrusted with the oracles of Yehovah as given to Moses and the Prophets with strict instructions not to add or take away.

      Whereas the gospels were passed down mostly by the gentiles and heavily influenced by the Roman Church giving birth to a variety of doctrines resulting in multiple Christian religions and sects.

      This is so well said it will be a hard act to follow, however, there is a key aspect of the words of John 8 you are quoting here that reveal a truth other than what you imply through faith alone. Nehemia does a great job explaining “I Am” in The Great I AM Revealed (https://www.nehemiaswall.com/the-great-i-am-revealed). Armed with this information we can clearly see that the Greek “ego emi ho own” for “I am the existence (being)” is not the same as the Hebrew “ehyeh asher ehyeh” – “I will be who/that I will be.” in Exo 3:14. In John 8 the use of “ego emi” is used by Jesus several times just as we would use “ego emi” to say “I am a teacher.” or “I am a pilot.” or “I am a little tea pot, short and stout.” but nowhere is “ho own” – “the existence (being)” declared by Jesus that would equate him to the “existence (being)” or “God” part of these words. The history, language, and context of the words in the OT and the NT really do matter. Please keep reading with an open mind. It is not a sin to question while seeking the truth. Many times it will prove the only way to find YHVH’s truths apart from mankind’s “truths.” Shalom

  • Wow! Really profound that connection between Miriam and the four women mentioned in the geneology – pregnancy and death! Something jumping out at me constantly from the Hebrew Matthew compared to the Greek/English – is the much deeper seriousness of consequences which are more in line with the Torah. The Hebrew Gospels all appear to make it abundantly clear that Torah was not done away with – nothing added, nothing taken away. I think the Greek/English has too many “grey areas” in the texts when it comes to Torah being our guide today. LOVE these studies! So thankful for the way you both share what you have learnt in order to inspire us to dig deeper for ourselves. Todah-ra-bah!!!