Part Three: Proof Texts and Problems

What follows is a study of the most significant claims of Christianity and their significance to the Tenakh. While there are many more claims that can be examined, the ones that follow hit specifically on the main, orthodox beliefs of Christianity. Essentially, each claim is a Category Two prophecy, that is, prophecies which Christians alone believe to be about Jesus. We are going to compare these claims closely to their alleged proof texts to ask once and for all, “Is this talking about Jesus?”

Chapter One: Sins of the Fathers

Claim #1: Jesus is eligible to be messiah based on his lineage

When we open up the Gospel of Matthew, we are confronted with the very first proof text in regards to Jesus eligibility as the messiah. This proof text is a genealogical record of Jesus’ father Joseph.

One of the messiah’s characteristics is that he is to be the descendant of King David, of the tribe of Judah (Psalm 132:17). The ordination of Judah as the regal bearer of the tribes of Israel is established in Genesis 49:10 by Israel himself: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a scholar from among his descendants until Shiloh arrives and his will be an assemblage of nations.”

It is important for the authors of the Gospels for us to be acquainted with this most fundamental aspect of the messiah. We are given the ancestors of Jesus via Joseph in Matthew chapter one:

Abraham

Isaac

Jacob

Judas (Patriarch of the clan of Judah)

Phares

Esrom

Aram

Aminadab

Naasson

Salmon

Booz (Boaz, the husband of Ruth, not alcohol)

Obed

Jesse

David (King David)

Solomon

Roboam (Instigated civil war. 1 Kings 12:12-19)

Abia

Asa

Josaphat

Joram

Ozias

Joatham

Achaz

Ezekias (The great king Hezekiah)

Manasses

Amon

Josias (The righteous king Josiah)

Jechonias (Accursed king of Judah)

Salathiel

Zorobabel (After the exile)

Abiud

Eliakim

Azor

Sadoc

Achim

Eliud

Eleazar

Matthan

Jacob

Josepth

Jesus

Cursed Be Ye

          Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus sends shockwaves throughout the remainder of the New Testament. Before we fully examine it, let’s step back a bit and look at 2 Samuel 7:11-17 (bold mine):

“And YHWH informs you that YHWH will establish a dynasty for you [Dawid]. When your days are complete and you lie with your forefathers, I shall raise up after you your offspring [Solomon] who will issue from your loins, and I shall make his kingdom firm. He shall build a temple for My sake, and I shall make firm the throne of his kingdom forever. I shall be a Father unto him and he shall be a son unto me, so that when he sins I will chastise him with the rod of men and with afflictions of human beings. But My kindness will not be removed from him as I removed [it] from Saul, whom I removed before you. Your dynasty and your kingdom will remain steadfast before you for all time; your throne will remain firm forever. In accordance with these words and this entire vision, so did Nathan speak to David.”

This makes it clear that the “scepter” will not only pass from the house of Judah, it will also never depart from the lineage of Solomon, the son of David. Amongst all of David’s 15 sons (1 Chr. 3:4, 7), God chose only Solomon to keep the “scepter” and build the magnificent Har Ha-Bayit (The Temple).

Here comes the “one-two punch”. Jesus has an ancestor named Jeconiah (Mt 1:11), who was the second to the last king of Judah before the Babylonian exile. Jeconiah (AKA Coniah) was a wicked man. So wicked in fact, that God cursed him saying, “Thus said YHWH: ‘Inscribe this man [Jeconiah] to become childless, a man who will not succeed in his life; for none of his descendants will ever succeed in being a man who sits on the throne of David, and ever to rule over Judah’” (Jer. 22:30, bold mine).

It is clear that any descendent of Jeconiah is ineligible to become a king. Jeconiah is taken away into the exile by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27:20). Zedekiah, who was Jeconiah’s uncle, replaced him as king of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:17). As we know, God instigated a rebellion led by Zedekiah resulting in Babylon’s return to Jerusalem to finish off the city (2 Kings 24:10). Although God uprooted Jeconiah from office, He replaced him with his uncle who was obviously of the stock of Solomon and had the right to rule.

The results? Since Jesus is a direct descendant of Jeconiah (1 Chr. 3:17-24) as Matthew claims, he is ineligible to be king and messiah.

The third chapter of Luke gives us another genealogy of Jesus via Joseph. Only this time, instead of 41 generations from Abraham, there are 55! The ancestors are also different than that of Matthew’s account.

Some Christians have tried to say that Luke’s account is that of Mary. This is sheer ignorance because Luke 3:23 states, “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…”

Luke inserts “As was supposed”. This is a strange remark implying people assumed Jesus was of human origin via Joseph and Mary. But according to Christendom, he wasn’t. The records of Joseph’s genealogy would be deceptive because Jesus really wasn’t from Joseph’s loins. Why would God have been lying to the Jews about Jesus’ origins? This most likely is a slick interpolation by a Nicene scholar to facilitate the virgin birth myth.

            Why even bother with a genealogical record if it didn’t even matter? This is strange. Also, if the messiah was truly born of a virgin, and it was such an obvious prophecy, why would it be concealed from the people? Furthermore, how could you even prove that someone was born of a virgin and that the mother never had sexual relations? You couldn’t. This is why Matthew states that Joseph, “…being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily” (Mat. 1:19). Because Mary allegedly became pregnant out of nowhere, Joseph, a faithful Jew, sought to divorce her for her apparent unfaithfulness. 

Josh McDowell, a prominent Christian apologist states, “Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendent of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. Jesus would have been of the cursed lineage.[1]”

There is no reconciliation for the two contradictions in Matthew and Luke’s genealogical record. Whatever the reason for the inconsistencies surrounding Jesus’ lineage, the answer is clear: there must not have been a solid consensus on the origins of Jesus between the writers of the Gospels. It may be safely presumed that only upon the canonization of the New Testament, during the Council of Nicea were these issues finalized.

I have heard a minister say that the contradictions in the Gospels give him greater faith because contradictions are signs that there really were eye-witness accounts of Gospel events. I don’t need to further explain to you the absurdity of this statement. However, to be on the sane side, if Christians are going to accept these contradictions, they should at least give up the claims that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and stop insulting God’s majesty.

Is it no wonder that Paul, in his advice to Timothy says, “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith...” (1 Tim 1:4). Paul’s right! Perish the thought someone may consider Jesus’ genealogy. They may question the same things I just showed here. And if someone questions the issue, their faith may be stake; and that’s not good for the religious hierarchy!

 Christianity solves the problem of Jesus’ cursed lineage by claiming he was born of a virgin. Regarding this, McDowell states, “The virgin birth of Christ is not only a historical fact, but a necessary historical fact when one considers the data”[2]. In the next chapter, we will see that the virgin birth was not only impossible, but neither was it historical. In fact, the virgin birth could have only been contrived to solve the theological problem of Joseph’s lineage and nothing more. It is a piece of religious propaganda.

Claim #1: FALSE

Chapter Two: Virgin Born or Prophetic Scorn?

Claim #2: Jesus was born of a virgin allowing him to bypass the curse on Joseph’s ancestry and become sinless

The virgin birth is one of the more fantastic claims of Christianity. It has spawned more holiday songs than anything else, including one of my favorites, “Silent Night”. The birth of Jesus marks the holiday of Christmas for Christians. On December 25, they celebrate the returning of the “Son of God” to this cold, dying world. Whatever your position on Christmas, whether it’s a commercialized scam, pagan reinvention or historic fact, it is one of the most important aspects to Christian claims of Jesus’ legitimacy.

Aside from the comparative problems between Matthew and Isaiah, the virgin birth poses logical threats to Christianity. We’ll take a look at these threats soon. For right now, let’s consider the big proof text given to us by Matthew:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which his conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Mt 1:18-23 KJV bold mine)

Textual Problems

          When comparing the proof texts of Matthew 1:21-23 to its origins in Isaiah 7, the reader will notice many discrepancies. The most obvious of these discrepancies is that the verse is taken out of context. I cannot stress enough how important it is to read things in their context.To understand the true meaning of Isaiah 7:14, it is necessary to read most of the chapter.

            “It happened in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah: Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to wage war against Jerusalem, but he could not triumph over it. It was told to the House of David, saying, ‘Aram has joined with Ephraim’; and his heart shuddered, and the heart of his people, like the shuddering of the trees of the forest in the wind” (Is 7:1-2). The scene opens up with Israel and Syria attempting to destroy Jerusalem. Ahaz, a wicked king, was ruler of Judah at that time. The alliance failed to take down Jerusalem but the people and Ahaz were still frightened. We see here, that though Ahaz was an evil man (II Kings 16:2), God chose to defend His Holy City—a picture of grace that is soon to come in the following verses.

            “YHWH said to Isaiah, ‘Go out and meet Ahaz, you and your son Shearjashub [A Remainder Will Return], at the edge of the channel of the Upper Pool, at the road of the Launderer’s Field, and say to him, ‘Be calm and still; fear not. Let your heart not grow faint before these two smoldering spent firebrands: before the burning wrath of Rezin and Aram, and the son of Remaliah. Because Aram, along with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has counseled evil against you, saying, ‘Let us attack Judah and vex it and annex it to ourselves, and crown the son of Tabeel as king within it’—thus said my Lord YHWH Elohim: It shall not endure and it shall not be! For the capital of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin; in sixty five more years, Ephraim will cease to be a people. And the capital of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you do not believe this, it is because you lack faith’” (Is 7:3-9). God tells Isaiah and his son to meet Ahaz and tell him not to be afraid. God has already made plans for them in spite of their impending conquest. In 65 more years, Israel (Ephraim) will be exiled. God says there is nothing to worry about. Isaiah tells Ahaz that if he doesn’t believe what God told him, he lacks the faith to do so.

            “YHWH spoke further to Ahaz saying, ‘Request a sign for yourself from YHWH, your God; request it in the depths, or high above.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not request; I will not test YHWH’ (Is. 10-12).  God wants to make sure that Ahaz knows His word is true. Since Ahaz lacks faith in God’s utterance, God tells him to ask for a sign. Gideon, a judge, was also a man initially lacking faith. He requested that God give him a sign in Judges 6:17. However, Ahaz is so arrogant that he refuses to ask God for a sign even when he is commanded to do so.

            “[Isaiah] responded, ‘Hear now, O House of David: Is not enough for you that you scorn human [prophets], that you scorn even my God?’” (Is 7:13) Isaiah gets upset at Ahaz’s insolence. It was bad enough that he mock Isaiah’s prophecy, but to refuse to follow a direct command from God Himself is even worse! Since Ahaz doesn’t request a sign, God Himself provides the sign.

            “Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel” (Is 7:14). The first characteristic of this prophecy is that a maiden will become pregnant and bear a son. She will name this son Immanuel.

            “He will eat cream and honey as soon as he knows to abhor evil and choose good. For before the child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings whom you fear will be abandoned. [Later], YHWH will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s family days such as have not come since the Ephraim turned away from Judah: the king of Assyria’s invasion” (Is 7:15-17). Before Immanuel is old enough to choose good over evil, the two kings, Rezin and Pekah will be destroyed. After this happens, God will bring a period of great prosperity to Judah. God is referring to reign of peace under the righteous Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son. God says this peace will come via Assyria’s invasion into Ephraim and Syria.

            “It shall be on that day that YHWH will whistle to the fly that is at the far end of Egypt’s rivers and to the bee that is in the land of Assyria. They will come and all will encamp in the desolate valleys, in the crags of the rocks and upon all the brushes and all the bushes. On that day, the Lord will shave with a large razor those who crossed the [Euphrates] River with the king of Assyria; the head, the hair of the legs, and the beard, as well, will be destroyed” (Is 7:18-20). God will call the nation of Assyria to destroy Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria.

            After looking at the context of this chapter, you see that this is a prophecy given to Ahaz to console him in the near future. If this is talking about a virgin birth 700 years later, what consolation would that give Ahaz and the Judeans? Honestly, ask yourself that question! This prophecy was meant to be fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime.

            According to Christian theology we could imagine the scenario somewhat like this:

Isaiah: “Okay Ahaz, I know you and the Jews are really scared of Israel and Syria. But God told me that it’s gonna be okay. They won’t be successful in their attack.”

Ahaz: “Well that doesn’t help me very much, you stupid prophet.”

God: “Hey, Ahaz. Since you lack faith, I want you to ask Me for a sign. If you can’t believe My word, then you’ll believe a sign. Ask Me for any sign and I’ll give it to you!”

Ahaz: “I won’t ask you for a sign!”

Isaiah: “You irk me, Ahaz! If you insult me, that’s okay. But if you insult God, you’re quite a fool! Although you won’t ask God for a sign, He’ll give you one anyway!”

Ahaz: “Oh yeah? What would it be?”

Isaiah: “In about 700 years, a virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son that she will call Immanuel.”

Ahaz: “Uh, great. So how does that help me?”

Isaiah: “I guess it wouldn’t! The joke’s on you! Ha-ha!”

This scenario is humorous but it reflects Christian belief that this birth is to be fulfilled hundreds of years later by Mary and Jesus.

Almah/Bethulah Controversy

            Now, you may not be convinced that the “Virgin Birth” was taken out of context. You may even have some reasons for your beliefs. The most common reason Christians give is that Isaiah indeed meant “virgin” instead of “maiden” or “young woman”.

            How can we decide if this is true? Let’s look at the Hebrew text. The word commonly translated as “virgin”, “maiden” or “young woman” is “עַלְמָה”, (almah).

            Almah doesn’t not automatically mean virgin. Its meaning is that of a young woman who may or may not be a virgin. The writers of the New Testament assume the former and say that the young woman is a virgin who will conceive.

            This may be applicable. However, even if the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 is a virgin, it nowhere says that God or the Holy Spirit will be the father of the child. Furthermore, Christians place a post-interpretive bias on this verse saying it is a miraculous birth[3] and would be a sign from God. First of all, there is no implying that this birth is miraculous. The birth is neither a miracle-- it is a sign “אוֹת” (oth). Understand?

            The Hebrew word definitively meaning virgin is “בְּתוּלַת” (b’thulath) or (bethulah). This word appears over 30 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Compare that to the occurrence of the word “almah” which occurs only twice. Now, if Isaiah really wanted us to know for a fact that the woman in 7:14 was a virgin, he would have used “bethulah”. Why would God, in expecting a virgin to give birth, have used the word “almah” which could mean either or both? It doesn’t make sense. What does make sense is that “bethulah” is not used by Isaiah thereby giving us greater evidence that the woman was not explicitly a virgin. 

            Here is a textbook example of Christian bias and unsound logic: “Matthew reveals that this supernatural birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary would fulfill the prophecy made by Isaiah over seven hundred years earlier…Isaiah used the Hebrew word almah in this verse to refer to the child’s mother. Because almah refers to an unmarried, young woman and does not definitively translate as ‘virgin’, some scholars deny the possibility of the virgin birth. However, the Hebrew word almah carries with it an implication of morality, so that a young, unmarried woman would be expected to still be a virgin. Consider also that this prophecy was to be a supernatural sign. If almah did not mean a virgin, how would the birth of a son to a sexually active young woman be a prophetic sign from God since such births happen everyday? Obviously, the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy signaled a virgin birth. Jesus came to humanity, revealed as God, descended from his heavenly throne, taking human flesh through the miracle of the incarnation.”[4]

            Grant Jeffery, editor of my King James Prophecy Study Bible, clearly admits that “almah” doesn’t definitively mean virgin. He goes on to say that “almah” implies morality. This is ridiculous. There is no implication of morality in the word “almah”. It can mean a maiden who is a floozy or a maiden that is modest- but not concretely one or the other!

            He also claims that the birth was a supernatural sign. This, as we saw before is not apparent anywhere in Isaiah 7:14. It was to be just a sign and that God Himself gives the sign since Ahaz refused to request one.

            The editor also says, “If almah did not mean a virgin, how would the birth of a son to a sexually active young woman be a prophetic sign from God since such births happen everyday?” This type of thinking is marred by a post-interpretive bias which presumes that the “almah” is a virgin. This presumption overshadows any reason which may contradict the Christian doctrine that the “almah” is an unmarried virgin 700 years in the future. This is not only poor scholarship but self-deception as well.

            Jeffery also claims that because “almah” doesn’t specifically mean virgin, many scholars deny the virgin birth. This is not a problem, but rather a byproduct of honest research into Isaiah 7:14. There are over ten Christian translations that translated the word “almah” as “young woman”. Such translations include the Revised Standard Version and The New Jerusalem Bible. It’s unfair to label these translations as anti-Christian simply because they don’t translate “almah” as “virgin”.

Immanuel or Jesus?

Another problem between Matthew and Isaiah is the question of the naming of Jesus. Isaiah says that the child will be named “Immanuel”. However, the Christian messiah is actually named Jesus. How do we solve this contradiction?

            For the Jews, the answer is simple: Christianity is wrong and the writer of the Gospel of Matthew is confused. This may seem like a good answer but it doesn’t work for Christians.

            Matthew writes, “And she [Mary] shall bring forth a son, and thou [Joseph] shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). Matthew clearly writes that the angel told Joseph that he (Joseph) would name the child “Jesus”.

            In verse 22, Matthew writes, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Matthew writes that “they” shall call the baby Emmanuel. Who are “they”?

            However, in Isaiah 7:14, the prophet states “…and she will call his name Immanuel.” The “almah” will call her son Immanuel.

            So here we have three contradictions: Joseph named the baby “Jesus”, “they” will name the child Emmanuel and the “almah” will name her child Immanuel. This may seem like hairsplitting to you, but it is important that we follow this through.

            To start, we must return to the original and inerrant Hebrew text of Isaiah for the truth. The phrase, “…and she will call his name Immanuel” in Hebrew is “וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל”.  Transliterated, it is “w’qarath shmo ‘imanu el”.The word “וְקָרָאת” is future-tense feminine for “and she will call”. The word “שְׁמוֹ” means “his name”. And of course, “עִמָּנוּ אֵל” means “with us [is] God” or “Immanuel”. The Hebrew text is proof positive that the “almah” will call her son Immanuel.

            Christians argue that Jesus is “God in the flesh” therefore, although Jesus wasn’t named Immanuel, he was truly “God with us”. This is misleading and also contradicts the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14. Just because someone is named Immanuel doesn’t automatically make him “God in the flesh”.  Elijah means “He is YHWH God”. This doesn’t mean Elijah was actually God in the flesh! Likewise is the name for the angel Michael. Michael means “Who is like God”. This doesn’t mean Michael is like God. Rather, it is a declaration of God’s splendor akin to someone asking “Who is like God?” When a Christian says these things, it is evidence that they are affected by a post-interpretive bias.

            Although the angel tells Joseph that he will name the baby “Jesus”, Matthew still claims this was prophesied by Isaiah! “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet…” (Mt 1:22). This was not foretold by Isaiah or by any Hebrew prophet. These inconsistencies only imply, as stated in the previous chapter, that there was not a consensus on the origins of Jesus by the writers of the Gospels.

Who’s the Real Immanuel, Anyway?

            Isaiah’s prophecy that the kings of Aram and Israel will be defeated (Is 7:8-9) was fulfilled exactly as told. Let’s see how.

            The book of Kings tells us about the lives of the kings of Israel and Judah. In II Kings 29, we read, “In the days Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead and the Galilee—all the lands of Naphtali—and he exiled them to Assyria. Hoshea son of Elah conspired against Pekah son of Remaliah, and he struck him, and killed him; and he reigned in his place, in the twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah.”

            Pekah is assassinated and the nation of Israel exiled as prophesied by Isaiah. In the same record, we read that Rezin, the king of Syria was also killed by Assyria, “Ahaz took whatever silver and gold was found in the Temple of YHWH and in the treasuries of the king’s palace, and he sent a bribe to the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria heeded him. The king of Asssyria went up to Damascus and seized it, exiling its [inhabitants] to Kir, and killed Rezin” (II Kings 16:8-9).

            So Rezin and Pekah both failed in their attempts to overthrow Jerusalem and were appropriately disposed of according to the word of God. Where does the child Immanuel come into play? Remember, Isaiah said, “He will eat cream and honey as soon as he knows to abhor evil and choose good. For before the child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings whom you fear will be abandoned” (Is 7:15-16). The child Immanuel was a living sign that showed, in spite of Ahaz’s evil and the threats of Israel and Syria, that indeed God was with Judah. And whenever somebody saw the child named Immanuel, they would be reminded that “God is with us”. This is the meaning of the sign of the child Immanuel. He is a sign that God protected Jerusalem.

            Is the meaning that simple? Yes it is. In fact, it becomes even more interesting. Immanuel is one of the three sons of Isaiah who served as signs to Judah. His first son Shearjashub, meaning “a remnant will return” (Is 7:3), was a sign to those in Judah regarding their future exile. Isaiah’s wife, a prophetess, may be the ‘almah’ spoken of in Isaiah 7. She gave birth to Immanuel and she also gave birth to their third son who served as a sign to Judah as well (Is 8:3). The third child to serve as a sign to Judah was Maher-shalal-hash-baz. “YHWH said to me [Isaiah], ‘Take a large scroll and write on it in clear script: ‘Plunder hastens; spoil quickens.’ I appointed trustworthy witnesses for myself: Uriah the Kohen and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son; and YHWH said to me, ‘Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz [Plunder Hastens, Spoil Quickens]. For before the child knows how to say ‘My father’ and ‘My mother’, the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria will be carried off before the king of Assyria’” (Is 8:1-4).

            The significance of Maher-shalal-hash-baz’s name is that there was impending doom coming to Syria and Israel by the hand of Assyria. Notice that the same terminology is used, “For before the child knows…” (Is 8:4) for Maher-shalal-hash-baz as it was for Immanuel (Isaiah 7:16)! Before Maher-shalal-hash-baz can say “My mom, my dad”, Syria and Israel would be destroyed. And it happened just as II Kings records.

            In Isaiah 8:6-8, God talks about Assyria will come like a flood and cover the land. This prophecy surrounds the child Immanuel. God says, “It will pass through Judah, flooding as it passes, and reaching to the neck; and its wingspread will the full breadth of your land, O Immanuel” (Is 8:8). Incredible! This is the same Immanuel who was supposed to be born of a virgin 700 years later! We see that his name surrounds the destruction of Israel and Syria! These were events that were to occur in his lifetime—and they did, just as Isaiah prophesied (Is 7:16).

            God then tells Isaiah that Judah will not be conquered, because He declared it so in His sign: Immanuel the child: “Plan a conspiracy and it shall be annulled; speak your piece and it shall not stand, for God is with us!” (Is 8:10) That phrase “God is with us” is the exact same phrase used for the name Immanuel: “עִמָּנוּ אֵל”! Don’t you get it yet? The prophecy was a sign to take place in the lives of Isaiah and Ahaz themselves! It has no far-future interpretations and everything revealed to us in chapters 7 and 8 of Isaiah have shown that to be true.

            You want final proof? Okay, here is: “Behold, I and the children whom YHWH has me are signs and symbols for Israel, from YHWH, Master of Legions, Who dwells in Mount Zion” (Is 8:18). This is straight from Isaiah’s mouth. His children Shearjashub, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz were signs for the people of Israel and Judah according to the word of God. Each had a name referring to an occurrence in the history of the people:

            Shearjashub- meaning “a remnant shall return” forecasts Judah’s exile to Babylon and their return.

            Immanuel- meaning “God with us” gave strength to Judah and was a sign that God was with them during the siege against Jerusalem and made sure they were safe.

            Maher-shalal-hash-baz- meaning “Plunder Hastens, Spoil Quickens”, refers to the final destruction of Syria and Israel at the hands of Assyria via the will of God.

            Fascinating!

Problems of Logic

          It seems that we have cleared up the textual problems between Matthew and Isaiah and we’ve shown that Isaiah is not talking about a future prophecy. We’ve also seen that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth doesn’t fulfill any prophecies of Isaiah 7. Immanuel is Isaiah’s son and served as a timely sign of God’s favor with the Judeans during their time of peril.

            While the coast may seem clear, Christians have developed some ideas which they use to insist that Jesus is Immanuel. Let’s take a look at these ideas.

A Necessary Historical Fact?

            Josh McDowell says, “The virgin birth of Christ is not only an historical fact, but it was also a necessary historical fact when one considers all the data.”[5] I find this extremely amusing because it is very misleading. There are no historical records anywhere detailing that Jesus was born of a virgin—or born to a woman named Mary at all. However, Josh McDowell thinks so: “The virgin birth is set down in the Bible as an historical fact. The writers who recorded the story were Matthew—and eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus—and Luke, the doctor, who presents many things in the life of Christ from Mary’s viewpoint. The passages in both Matthew and Luke are authentic, with no evidence at all that they were later additions to the text” (page 188).

            So McDowell says that there are historical records of Jesus’ virgin birth—the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Isn’t that strange? This is neither evidence nor fact. The Gospels are propaganda aimed at getting us to believe in something. How can McDowell expect Matthew and Luke to be telling the truth when we just saw that Immanuel has absolutely no link to Jesus and Roman occupied Palestine? What is also interesting is that Luke, when mentioning Mary’s immaculate conception, doesn’t refer to Isaiah’s writings at all.

 How can McDowell and Christians believe this? They can because of faith. They believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. They believe that Jesus was born of a virgin because Matthew said so—according to Matthew’s Gospel. They have so much faith that the Gospels are telling the truth that they are willingly ignorant of the reality of the information I have shown you above.

Matthew is mixed up in his interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Luke is confused with Joseph’s genealogy in contrast to Matthew’s. How can you reconcile these? You cannot.

Even if there stories of the virgin birth were later additions to the text (which is very likely), we would still find the inconsistencies that appear in the Gospels. Like I said in the previous chapter, “… there must not have been a solid consensus on the origins of Jesus between the writers of the Gospels.”

But God Can Do Anything He Wants To!

            When people doubt the virgin birth, Christians will respond with this famous quote, “For with God, nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37 KJV). While it may be true that God can impregnate a virgin and can make an old woman have the ability to reproduce (Lk 1:36), it doesn’t mean that He did. And simply because the Gospels say so doesn’t mean it can or did happen. This quote is used by those Christians who are generally lazy and don’t study their Bibles. It is also used by Christians who make faith the sheer axiom by which they interpret the Scriptures and have run out of empirical reasons to counter the points made in this chapter.

Tribe or Not to Tribe

            At this point, let us merge the previous chapter regarding Jesus’ genealogy with the implications of the virgin birth.

            Remember the quote from Josh McDowell: “Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendent of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. Jesus would have been of the cursed lineage.”

            As I said in the last chapter, Christianity solves the problem of Joseph’s cursed lineage by claiming Jesus was born of a virgin according to Isaiah’s prophecy. Since Jesus would be cursed and could not be king if he were born via Joseph and if he were born of a supernatural father and a human mother, he would not have the stain of the cursed genealogy on his record. Well, we’ve seen that the virgin birth is not true. It has no credibility from Isaiah’s prophecy and it is a piece of religious propaganda.

            The question arises, if Jesus was born of a virgin, why have two sets of Joseph’s genealogy? It is misleading to think God wanted the Jews to think Jesus was born of a human father when he really isn’t. This only points to confusion in the minds of the Gospel writers and the architects of Christianity.

            Many have said that because the virgin birth renders the curse on Joseph’s lineage null, Jesus is eligible for the throne of David via Mary. This statement stems from the assumption that Mary is also from the tribe of Judah. There is no evidence in the New Testament to prove this true or false. However, if this were true, two problems arise:

1.      Tribal affiliation and legitimate Hebrew ancestry is determined only via the father. This is apparent when one reads the first chapter of numbers. God tells Moses to “Take a census of the entire assembly of the Children of Israel according to their families, according to their fathers’ household…” (Numbers 1:2). Were it even conceivable that Jesus was born without a human father, he would still have no legal tribal affiliation.

2.      It is not even safe to presume that Mary is of the tribe of Judah. How do we know that she is not from the same stock of cursed lineage as Joseph? We don’t!

A few months ago, I was listening to the “The Coral Ridge Hour” on a Christian radio station. This show is hosted by the well respected and intelligent Dr. D. James Kennedy. The topic was on the virgin birth. Dr. Kennedy made clear the problems concerning Jesus’ genealogy and concluded with the “miracle” of the virgin birth was a necessary move by God in order to get around Joseph’s lineage.

Dr. Kennedy then made a bold move. He quoted Isaiah 9:5 in part: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given unto us…” This part of Isaiah, as you may or may not know is used by Christians to prove Jesus’ deity. Dr. Kennedy says that when Isaiah meant “a son has been given unto us”, he means that Joseph adopted Jesus. And since Joseph adopted Jesus and took him to be his own, he is now a legitimate member of the tribe of Judah unharmed by Jeconiah’s curse.

This is not logical, it is preposterous. Consider what Dr. Kennedy is saying: first, Joseph is from a cursed genealogy, whereby none of his descendants could be king or messiah. Secondly, Jesus is born of a virgin to presumably bypass this curse via Joseph. Then, Jesus is adopted by Joseph thus making him a member of the tribe of Judah and heir to be king? This is insane and there is neither logic nor Scripture to back this up. In all truth, even if Jesus were to be adopted as one of Joseph’s own, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be messiah because there would be no records indicating who his true father was thereby making his tribal ancestry completely unknown. And if Joseph were to truly make Jesus “one of his own”, he would have to remind Jesus that he could never be king over Israel. No matter how you slice it, zero times zero equals zero!

The Dual Prophecy Claim

            Christians claim that although the events of Isaiah 7 may have occurred in their correct context, it is also a prophecy foretelling Jesus’ virgin birth. This is considered an example of a dual prophecy.

            Most Christians view Isaiah 7 this way and rightly so, for it would be foolish not to consider the true context. But if Isaiah 7 were to be a dual prophecy, how do you know which parts Isaiah claims are about Jesus and other parts are not?

            The funny thing is that Christians only pull Isaiah 7:14 out as the dual prophecy. Thus, the only evidence they can produce for a virgin birth in the Old Testament is, “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel…” (Matthew 1:23 KJV)

            An important theological implication such as a virgin birth based only on one phrase is questionable. The only way Christians can claim this is a dual prophecy is if they create the grounds for Jesus to fulfill it. For example, say I was Matthew and had this problem with my messiah. See, his earthly father is from the cursed Jeconiah line of King David. My messiah can’t possibly be messiah! What I need is a way to overcome this problem. I know! I’ll look somewhere in the Tenakh and pull something out from there. Look! In Isaiah 7:14, he talks about a woman giving birth to a son named Immanuel! Well, if I add in a story about Jesus being born a virgin and claim to have that been foretold by Isaiah, I’m made in the shade!

            Do you see what I mean here? I can only ascribe a prophecy in the book of Isaiah in the past to Jesus if I create the means for Jesus to fulfill it. This is the essence of the post-interpretive bias. It means taking a verse out of context and then creating the fulfillment of that verse after it has been logically interpreted and shape it to meet my own needs. Christianity relies on this bias for its theology to stand on. That is why it is impossible to reconcile these contradictions in genealogy and discrepancies in the virgin birth proof texts!

Is This a Messianic Prophecy?

            Finally, we get to the last and probably most important part of this chapter. Christians would do good to ask themselves, “Is this really a messianic prophecy?” The answer is no. First, there is no allusion to the messiah being born a virgin anywhere in the Tenakh. As we have seen, there is no way that Isaiah 7:14 could be talking about a prophecy 700 years in the future and a virgin birth.

            Again, the only reason why Christianity assumes that Isaiah 7:14 is messianic prophecy is because they have placed the post-interpretive bias on it. The messianic prophecy exists only if the Gospel authors had said it exists. This blows a large hole in Christianity. It questions the veracity and integrity of the Gospel authors and raises questions about the very origins of Jesus himself.

            Let us sum up the matter in a sentence: Jesus is damned if he is born through Joseph because his lineage is cursed and he is also damned if he is born of a virgin because he is not of a male descendant of King David. This simple statement is the obvious conclusion to a thorough study of the claims regarding Jesus’ virgin birth.

            Now for the cataclysmic statement: Since the origins of Christianity rely upon the genealogy of Jesus and the virgin birth, they are the primary subjects of refutation. Since you have been shown in these first two chapters that these claims are spurious, we can consider having eliminated Christianity altogether in just two chapters! If Jesus cannot be king, he can’t be messiah. If Jesus cannot be born of a virgin, he is only a man. Both of these conclusions send shockwaves through Christianity. Alas, people are not prepared to accept the truth because they would rather believe in a lie and not study things for themselves.

            The battle doesn’t end here as we’d like it to. There are more outlandish claims of Christianity- claims that have far more dangerous implications than lineage or birth controversies. Let’s move on to those.

Claim #2: FALSE

Chapter Three: The Messiah Would be Called a Nazarene

Claim #3: It was foretold by the prophets that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene

            Most of the time, the Gospels refer to a portion in the Tanakh as its source and takes it out of context. In this particular instance, we do not experience this trickery. Rather, we discover that the source which Matthew is quoting does not even exist. Let’s see how this one turns out.

            “And he came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene,” (Matt. 2:23).

            The King James Prophecy Study Bible commentary states, “Though the exact words of this prophecy do not exist in the OT [Old Testament], note that Matthew indicated that the prophetical words were spoken by more than one prophet. When several of the OT prophecies are viewed together (especially Ps 22:6; Isa 11:1; and 53:3), the Messiah is pictured as someone who was despised or referred to as a branch,” (1068, commentary on verse 2:23).

            Immediately, scholars admit that the phrase doesn’t even exist in the Tanakh. Furthermore, the word “Nazarene” or “Nazareth” cannot be found in the Tanakh at all. This should make anyone stop in their tracks and consider carefully the Gospel’s reliability. For a moment, let’s look at the proof text of Isaiah 11:1.

            Isaiah 11:1, But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse, a twig shall sprout from his stock. The spirit of the Lord shall alight upon him…” (Isa. 11:1-2) This is a category one prophecy, whose interpretation is agreed upon by both Jewish and Christian scholars as referring to Meshiach Ben David. The term “twig” of “stem” in Hebrew is “נֵצֶר” (neitzer). There is a problem with this statement however. As we saw in a previous chapter, Jesus did not have an earthly father (Joseph). He was clearly born of a non-human entity therefore he could not possibly be the Messiah. Furthermore, we saw that even if he was considered a legitimate child of Joseph, something which all Judeans assumed, he would never be allowed to sit on the throne because he came from the cursed line of Jeconiah.

            Basically, we solved the problem: there’s no mention of “Nazareth” or “Nazarene” in the Tanakh and no prophet ever mentioned the words. Isaiah 11:1 is a poor proof since Jesus didn’t have an earthly father by a legitimate heir to the Davidic throne. In this particular Christian Bible I am using, the references refer to Judges 13:5 and First Samuel 1:11. What could be so convincing from these sources that they would be placed as a reference? Let’s find out.

            Both Judges 13:5 and First Samuel 1:11 refer to “Nazirites”. This is not to be confused with “Nazarene”, as Christian scholars, evidenced by the references notes, would have you believe. Though this may represent deliberate deception, it could shed more light on the identity of Jesus.

            Let’s take a short study on the “Nazirite”. Numbers chapter 6 begins, “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If anyone, man or woman, explicitly utters a nazirite’s vow, to set himself apart for the Lord, he shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant; he shall not drink vinegar of wine or of any other intoxicant, neither shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped, nor eat grapes fresh or dried…no razor shall touch his head; it shall remain consecrated until the completion of his term as nazirite of the Lord…” (Num. 6:1-3, 5).

            A nazirite is one who takes a special oath to serve God characterized by the abstention of anything made of grapes, avoiding contact with the dead and keeping his/her head unshaven. The only Nazirites seen in the Tanakh are Samson and Samuel- but countless more existed.

            In Hebrew, “nazirite” is “נָזִיר” (nazir). Nazirite is derived from the verb “לְהַזִּיר” (l’hazir), meaning to be set apart (see the Hebrew version of Numbers 6:2). It is evident that through comparing “branch” or “stem” (נֵצֶר) to “Nazirite” (נָזִיר), we see that they are two completely different terms. But why put this reference to Nazarites when Matthew is talking about Nazareth? This doesn’t make sense. Is it a deception or scholarly mistake? You decide.

Jesus- a Nazarite?

            In “James, the Brother of Jesus”, Robert Eisenman gives us his monumental study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and its significance to the origins of Christianity. Eisenman gives evidence that James (who enjoys irrefutable religious and secular evidence of his existence) the brother of Jesus was a life-long Nazarite. This life-long vow was characteristic of the Essene/Nazorean/Ebionite sect of first century Judea. Eisenman postulates that since James, the successor to Jesus, was a Nazarite, and led a sect of a few thousand Nazarites himself, Jesus may have also been a Nazarite.

            This would be interesting to consider assuming it was caused by a misunderstanding of the word “nazir”. Did this misunderstanding go so far as to cause Christian tradition to play itself out into calling Jesus a Nazarene and therefore his hometown, Nazareth? The pronunciations of “netzer” and “nazir” are very alike to the untrained ear. Is it also possible this entire contreversy had originated from a faulty translation or transcription of an earlier Hebrew or Greek manuscript?

            If Jesus was a nazirite, he would be forbidden to drink anything derived from grapes- even vinegar. We read in all four Gospel accounts of the crucifixion that Jesus was offered vinegar mixed with an anesthetic agent. Historians and herbalists say that vinegar was mixed with hyssop (Jn 19:29) or myrrh (Mk 15:23) as an anesthetic to help cope with the pain. Let’s compare the four accounts and see what we can infer from them:

·        Matthew 27:34, “they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted of it, he would not drink.” Matthew 27:48, “and straightway, one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed and gave him to drink.”

·        Mark 15:23, “And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.” Mark 15:36, “And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.”

·        Luke 23:36, “And the soldiers also mocked him coming to him, and offering him vinegar.”

·        John 18:29, “And there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon it hyssop, and put it to his mouth.”

While comparing these verses, we see many discrepancies, but one thing is assured, Jesus was offered vinegar, but refused it. Matthew 27:34 is interesting because it said that he when he tasted that the sponge had vinegar, he wouldn’t drink it. Was this because he was a Nazirite and intended to keep the Nazirite vow even unto death? The Gospel authors say he was given vinegar to drink, but the majority of evidence reveals that he did not receive it. Most Christians would say that this was because he intended to suffer and fulfill his destiny as the “lamb of God”. I believe that Jesus refused it because he was a Nazirite.

In the book, “James the Brother of Jesus”, Robert Eisenman reveals evidence that James was indeed a Nazarite according to early church historians. Eisenman feels that because there is such lack of evidence as to who the historical Jesus was, it is best to assume that he was much like his more historically based brother James who was a Nazarite. If this is so, then it could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was indeed a Nazirite and the entire “Nazarene” controversy was stemmed (no pun intended) from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew.

Claim #3: FALSE

Chapter Four: Lucifer and Satan

Claim #4: The Satan and Lucifer are The Same Being

            There is a great dichotomy between the Christian and Hebrew views on Satan. Though it may seem out of place right now, a study on the differences between the Christian and Hebrews on this issue have great theological implications and an honest study on this subject will show us just how different Christianity is from Judaism.

Culture

            Whether or not you are Jewish, Christian, Moslem or Hindu you are affected by this pagan culture.  How do we see Satan today in our culture? It is primarily as a red-skinned, horned deviant who lives in Hell and tortures the spirits of the wicked to his delight. This demonic creature has many names, most of which have been given to him by the Church. Names vary such as Devil, Diabolos, Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the God of this world, the Serpent, Nick, Anti-Christ, the Beast, Pluto, Hades etc.

            The Euro-American culture we have today is a mix of paganism and Christianity. And it should be said that Christianity itself is a mix of Judaism and paganism. Thanks to the pagan roots of orthodox Christianity we find ourselves in a culture where the line between the original Hebrew belief in Satan and the pagan concept of a Devil is blurred and muddled. It is our duty, then, to discover the true Hebrew belief of Satan and to stand on its theological implications as part of our practice of Torah.

The Adversary

            The word “Satan” literally means “the adversary” or the “accuser”. Is it a proper noun referring to a name? Yes and no. Satan has had multiple applications in its usage throughout Jewish history. Its uses include:

1. “Hasatan”: literally meaning “the enemy”. This use of the word, while adding to it a definite article is telling us of a particular adversary. Hasatan is used in the Book of Job in regards to the messenger (malakh in Hebrew) that accuses the righteous of the earth before God. It (I use “it” because angels have no gender) is an angelic being whose role is specifically bring accusations against Mankind before God. The word “satan” comes from the Hebrew verb “L’siten”, which means “to accuse”.  You can see the root letters “S,T,N” which form the base of the word “satan”.
2. “Satan”: meaning adversary is found in places in the Tenakh and used as a general term for opponent or contender as found in Psalm 109:6, “Appoint over him a wicked man and let an adversary (satan) stand at his right”.
3. Satan is also used in Jewish prayer referring to the “evil inclination” which Man must contend with throughout everyday life. It is this evil inclination that is a “contender” and “adversary” to Man’s moral dilemma. Consider what YHVH said to Cain before he killed Abel: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you don’t do well, sin waits at the door. It’s desire is to be over you yet you will rule over him”. Genesis 4:7. Cain had the ability to control his sinful tendencies i.e. the “contender” of his soul. But Cain refused to control it and slew his brother instead. This sin concept is collectively called “satan”.

As a note, I would like to point out that in Christian translations, the Hebrew word “satan” will be translated as enemy, contender or as the proper noun of Satan referring to the angelic being. How do we know which translation is right? We must look at what the context in which the word “satan” is used. This will determine whether or not it generically means “adversary, contender” or the proper noun of the angelic being.

Job, “That poor bastard”

            Most scholars agree that the book of Job is the oldest book in the Tenakh (Old Testament) due to its reference of geographical settings and cultural nuisances. Job probably lived around the time of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.  Job is considered to be righteous and fearing God. Job would give offerings to God just in case his children either sinned against God in the flesh or in their hearts.

            It is in 1:6 that Hasatan is first mentioned. Let us consider that this concept of Hasatan precedes even the giving of the Torah, given the majority presumption that the record of Job is the oldest of the writings in the Tenakh. The record states,

            “And it was today that the Sons of God presented themselves before YHVH and also came The Satan from among them. And YHVH said to The Satan, ‘Where did you come from?’ And answered The Satan to YHVH saying, ‘From wandering in the earth and walking in it’. And YHVH said to The Satan, ‘Have you set your heart on my servant Job, for there is no one like him on earth; a wholesome and righteous man who fears God and shuns evil.’

            It becomes apparent to the reader that The Satan travels throughout the earth to look for people to whom God should test. At this point in the narrative, YHVH suggests that The Satan contend against Job. Satan replies in verse 9: ‘Is it for nothing that Job fears God? Have you not set around him a wall around his household and everything he owns? You have blessed his handiwork and his livestock have spread throughout the land. But send forth your hand and touch everything that is his, and see if he does not blaspheme you to your face!’

            Satan tells God that Job is only loyal simply because God allows him to prosper. Satan entices God to test Job to see if The Satan’s accusation is indeed true.

            Verse 12: “So YHVH said to The Satan, ‘Look, everything that is his is in your hand. But don’t set your hand against him personally’. Then The Satan departed from the presence of YHVH.”

            We see that God gave The Satan authority to strike out against Job’s family and possessions in the attempt to see if Job only loves God because of his prosperity. We read later that all of Job’s children and possessions were destroyed by The Satan upon God’s authority. Let us note that The Satan did everything that God commanded him and did not deviate from it.

            After the terrible ordeal, The Satan comes before God again. YHVH tells The Satan that He tested Job for no reason (2:3). Apparently YHVH assumed that Job would definitely collapse under the weight of the chaos of his test, only he didn’t. God seems to be sad that Job was put under this ordeal and didn’t curse Him! The Satan then says, “But send forth your hand and touch his bone and flesh and surely he will curse You to Your face!” (2:4). Now God is giving The Satan the authority to afflict Job himself.

            Fortunately for Job, he only cursed his birthday and this is where the long dirge of Job begins. In the end, Job understood that he can’t fathom the ways of God and his returned unto him even more livestock and children than what he originally had. The moral of the story? God has the authority to test his righteous servants even up to death. The reasons aren’t always clear but the fact of the matter is that The Satan is not out of control but clearly obeying the will of God.

“May YHVH rebuke you, O Satan!”

            Another appearance of The Satan occurs in Zechariah chapter 3. The vision according to Zechariah, “Then He showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before an angel of YHVH and The Satan was standing at his right side to accuse him. The angel of YHVH said to The Satan, ‘YHVH denounces you, O Satan! May YHVH, who chooses Jerusalem, denounce you! Indeed this man is like a firebrand saved from fire!’” (3:1-2).

            The Satan was accusing Joshua of his sons marrying non-Hebrew wives (see Ezra 10:18). Since the families of the Kohanim were to marry only Hebrews and it was Joshua’s job to make sure this was done. The Satan saw this as an opportunity to incur God’s wrath upon Joshua. However God rebuked The Satan’s accusations and forgave Joshua (2:4). The Satan was justly pointing out Joshua’s sins but God told him to stop doing so.

            What have we gleaned from this so far? The Satan is not the enemy of YHVH. He is a righteous servant, doing the job for which he was created: accusing and contending against the righteous.

            The Satan’s modus operandi is the following:

1)      To search throughout the earth for righteous men to test.

2)      The Satan accuses the righteous person that his righteousness and reverence for God is superficial or he will point out sins which deserve the punishment of God

3)      The Satan will then contend against that person under God’s strict discretion.

The Satan is not the originator of every sinful deed of man. The Satan is a messenger (angel) of God and is limited to everything he can do.

The Satan in the Gospels

Within the Gospels, The Satan is called the “devil” which comes from the Latin “diabolos” meaning to divide. Essentially, the Devil tries to divide Man’s obedience to God and his sinful tendencies which will result in sin.

In the Gospels, Jesus is led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. At one point, The Satan says, “All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.’ Jesus said unto him, ‘Go your way, Satan, for it is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and only Him shall you serve’.’ (Matthew 4:9-10).

From here we glean certain opinions about The Satan. He purposively has the ability to give mankind dominion over the governments and nations of the earth. From this, we may think that The Satan controls the world’s governments as such. This is untrue, for The Satan has no such power and he is simply lying to Jesus. This is proof because Jesus doesn’t admonish him about his claim to world control but rather to his commandment for Jesus to worship him. Jesus quickly refutes The Satan by quoting Deuteronomy 6:13.

In the Gospel of John, 13:26-27, Jesus identifies his betrayer as Judas. Just then it says that “Satan entered into him [Judas]. Then Jesus said unto him, ‘That what you do, do it quickly’.”  Here we see that The Satan went into Judas. Does this mean that The Satan can enter humans and possess their body? This interpretation can be valid although we find no evidence of the Satan or any angel possessing the body of a man in the Tenakh. The interpretation can also be derived as a “contention” or “adversity” entered Judas’ thoughts to betray Jesus. Remember the meanings of the word “satan”? At no point in any of these occurrences in the Gospels is Satan referred to as The Satan as it is in the Tenakh. The meaning of this occurrence of the word “satan” in the Gospel of John may refer to simply as an attitude of betrayal to Jesus.

Another occurrence in the Gospel of Matthew occurs when Peter rebukes Jesus for telling him that he (Jesus) must be crucified and resurrected. Jesus responds to Peter saying, “Get behind me, Satan, you offend me. For you don’t desire the things that are of God but those that are of men” (Matthew 16:23). Is Jesus calling Peter The Satan? Or is he calling him an “adversary” or “contender” against Jesus’ plans? It is most likely, that Jesus is calling Peter an adversary, rather than The Satan. Consider this translation, “Get behind me, adversary, for you offend me…” It is more likely that Jesus was calling Peter an enemy to God’s plan because Peter didn’t desire that Jesus would die but rather live.

Many Christians use a passage in Luke that to them is considered proof that The Satan fell from heaven because it sought to become God. This passage in Luke 10:18 says, “And he (Jesus) said unto them (his disciples), ‘I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.’  This verse is taken out of context for the verse preceding it says that the disciples were excited because ‘even the devils are subject unto us through your name’ (Luke 10:17).

In the Gospels we see that the devils (which are plural ‘diabolos’) afflict men with possession and are subject to the disciples through Jesus’ authority. Is Jesus’ response referring to a past event in which The Satan was cast out of heaven for trying usurp God’s authority? I believe Jesus’ words can be interpreted as “I saw the adversary fall like lighting from heaven”. This means that Jesus is not referring to The Satan, but rather to the devils that were afflicting men. The devils afflicting men are the adversary. Jesus saw these devils fall from power as fast as lightning fires from the clouds. Lightning strikes quickly and the heaven which Jesus is referring to is the atmosphere in which clouds exists from where lightning strikes. This is not about a past event. And even if it were, Jesus’ exclamation would be completely out of context as if he were “spacing out” for a moment before replying to his disciples. A may also be an interpolation or gloss-note,

The Satan in the Book of Revelation

Within the Book of Revelation, we discover a huge development in the theology referring to The Satan. In Revelation chapter 12, we read that The Satan, who is also called the Devil and the Old Serpent fights against Michael and his angels in a war of undetermined purpose. Christian doctrine puts this war in context of Lucifer (Satan) fighting against Michael and his angels in order to assume the place of God.

In chapter 12:12 the angels of heaven defeat Satan and tell the people that Satan has been cast down for “the devil is come down to you having great wrath, because he knows he has but a short time”.  Satan is cast down to prepare the world for the wrath of God. In Revelation 13, the people of the earth worship Satan who gives power to the Beast, who rules the earth in evil dominion (verse 8).

Eventually in the end, as seen in Revelation 20, Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire to tormented forever and ever (verse 10). Is this dramatic and elaborate development of Satan a product of Hebrew theology or Roman-Gentile mythology? The book of Revelation identifies Satan as a chief enemy of God and of the Church. This is a far cry from The Satan we know in the Tenakh. Is The Satan the cherub that wanted to become God? Was he thrown out of heaven with his fallen angels? Where do Christians get this idea? We shall see this next.

The Anointed Cherub that Covers

There are two important areas in the Prophets in which Christians derive their basic theology about their Satan from. They are from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. In Isaiah 14, God tells Isaiah to write a prophecy that the children of Israel will say about the king of Babylon when they return to Judea after the Babylonian exile. Christians say that this prophecy is actually about Lucifer, the alternative Christian name for Satan. Isaiah 14:12 says about the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, “How you have fallen from the heavens, glorious son of the dawn, you have been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of nations. You have said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; higher than the stars of God I will raise my throne; I will sit at the mount of meeting, on the northern side. I will ascend over the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!” (Isaiah 14:12-14). The King James Version translates “glorious son of the dawn” into Lucifer, which is a proper noun. They consider that this Lucifer is Satan and that he tried to become like God. This is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew.

The term Lucifer, according to the Encarta Encyclopedia 2004 actually refers to the planet Venus: “Venus is the brightest object in the sky. The planet is called the morning star when it appears in the east at sunrise, and the evening star when it is in the west at sunset. In ancient times the evening star was called Hesperus and the morning star Phosphorus or Lucifer.”  The Encyclopedia also states that “The identification of Isaiah's Lucifer with the Devil began with Saint Jerome and other Fathers of the Church, who held that Jesus implied the identification when he said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). As the Encyclopedia has point out, the translation of “glorious son of morning” as Lucifer is a product of Christian Post-Interpretive Bias!

In Ezekiel 28, there is a prophecy regarding the king of Tyre. The king of Tyre considers himself a god but God says, “You are a man and not a god, though you set your heart like the heart of God!” (Ezekiel 28:2). Remember this concept that the king of Tyre is not a god but a man. Christians say this king of Tyre is also Lucifer and the prophecy is against him.  If it is Lucifer, how can Lucifer be a man? These assumptions can only be made from a Post Interpretive Bias that the translators had.

The Dualism Factor

In our Christianity, we see the Devil, or Lucifer no longer as a loyal servant of God, but a rebel angel who opposes God in every aspect.  It is doubtful that the early Nazarenes believed in this type of interpretation of The Satan as a supreme prince of darkness. This theology could only have come about through Christianity’s exposure to Roman pagan doctrine and especially that of Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism focuses on a paired system of deities, one of good and light named “Ahura Mazda” and one of evil and darkness called “Angra Mainyu”.  Zoroastrianism affected Mithraism which was one of the chief influences of Gentile Pauline Christianity. Mithra was very much a slain and risen savior character similar to the Jesus in the Gospels.

This dualistic concept was set in stone at the consolidation of beliefs at the Council of Nicea. The Jehovah God and his Son were the side of light and good while Lucifer was the side of darkness and evil.

This doctrine is contrary to Judaism where YHVH creates both good and evil. If He didn’t, how could he be all powerful? We saw in Job how YHVH allows The Satan to test His righteous servants. God created Man who in turn brought evil upon himself when Adam and Eve rejected God’s commandment to eat of the Tree of Knowledge.

It is interesting to note that The Satan has nothing to do with controlling the governments of the world and possessing the living. The Satan only tests the righteous followers of God. Man brings upon himself his own evils due to the nature of his heart and sin.

Claim #4: FALSE

Chapter Five: Jesus’ False Prophecy

Claim #5: Jesus will be coming again!

            We are going to look at one of the most important prophecies mentioned by Jesus himself in three of the synoptic Gospels. We will see whether or not Jesus is coming back as he claimed.

Take Heed

            Luke 21:5 begins with Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives overlooking east Jerusalem and the Temple. “And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he [Jesus] said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they [the disciples] asked him saying, Master, but when shall all these things be and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?’’

            Jesus replied, “Take heed that ye not be deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. But when ye shall hear of war and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by” (Lk 21:8-9).

            Jesus said that the first sign of his coming will be that many shall come in his name saying they are Christ, or as it truly means, anointed. This doesn’t necessarily mean that many shall arise saying “I am Jesus Christ!” The warning here is more subtle in nature. It means that persons will arise saying they are anointed and have the authority of God and/ or Jesus.

            Wars and commotions were not uncommon in Judea at that time. Judea was in the midst of Roman occupation under the governorship of Pontius Pilate and the puppet king Herod.

            Jesus continues saying that his disciples will be persecuted and thrown into prison (21:12). The disciples will also be betrayed by family and put to death (21:16). But then Jesus says that not even one head on their hair shall perish! This does not make sense! Either they will be killed or spared, so which is it? Although we cannot reconcile this contradiction, it is of no real importance.

 “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all the things which are written may be fulfilled” (Lk 21:20-22). This is an allusion to the historical account of the invasion and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 A.D. Jesus warns his followers to flee when they see the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

What does the phrases, “the days of vengeance” and “things which are written” mean? This is relating to the “End of Days” prophecies by the Hebrew prophets. Jesus could be referring to numerous apocalyptic prophecies such as Zechariah 12, Ezekiel 38 or Daniel 9.

Jesus’ prophecy gives us more clues: “…for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people [Jews]. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” (Lk 21:23-24).

Matthew 24:15 adds an important reference to the book of Daniel, stating, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place…the let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains…” (Mt 24:15-16). This is a reference to Daniel 9:27 which refers to an “abomination of desolation” that is the ultimate hallmark of perversion and defilement in Jerusalem.

Luke adds an interesting piece of information into his Gospel: “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waved roaring…and then they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh” (Lk 21:25,27-28).

So we see all of these things that Jesus spoke of were signs that precede his Second Coming (persecution, darkness, the Abomination of Desolation, Jerusalem surrounded by armies, etc). It is more important to note however, that during Jesus’ prophecy, he continuously says “you”, referring to his disciples. Matthew records that before they asked Jesus when the sign of his coming was, “the disciples came to him privately…” (Mt 24:3). Jesus was alone with his disciples and was telling them that indeed they would look up after these terrible events and see him returning in their lifetimes.

In Jesus’ time, it was understood by the Jews that the 70 weeks of Daniel were coming to an end. The fulfillment of Daniel 9 was coming to its fruition and this caused a huge messianic fervor and uprising that was directed towards Rome. According to Luke, Jesus was warning his disciples to avoid being killed by the Roman suppression of the uprising in 70 A.D. Some may ask, “How did Jesus know Rome was going to attack? He must have been a prophet.” While we can argue that these words were put into Jesus’ mouth by the writers of the Gospels after the Roman attack occurred, we should be mindful that it would be no big surprise that such an attack would happen by an Imperial power in response to a violent uprising of its subjects.

Let’s put aside giving Jesus the benefit of some type of prophetic gnosis or interpolation by later scholars. I already stated that in Jesus’ time, the 70 weeks of Daniel were coming to an end. If Jesus was learned in Daniel’s writings, he would have been aware of “And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined” (Daniel 9:26). Jesus and many others knew at that time that in just a matter of decades, Rome would come to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple if the Jews didn’t get their act together. Jesus also knew that the “last week” would occur and the Abomination of Desolation would be set up. This doesn’t prove Jesus had any prophetic ability, only that he was very aware of the times and the writings of Daniel.

However, all assumptions about the legitimacy of Jesus’ prophecy are removed when we read that Matthew also states that immediately after these signs of war, the darkening of the sun and the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus shall appear in the clouds with glory (Mt. 29-30). This is absolute proof that Jesus predicted his own return after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If this is true, then Jesus should have returned and brought his kingdom. It didn’t- so what happened?

After the Roman siege, when the Jews were weakened and scattered amongst the nations, Jesus still didn’t show up. In fact, near the end of the first century, John the Revelator was still expecting Jesus to come quickly: “He which testifieth these things [Jesus] saith, Surely I come quickly…” (Rev 22:21)

Jesus simply didn’t return as he prophesied and since then, Christians have had to rework their entire theology and say that this “return prophecy” has not yet happened. This is very interesting because this renders Matthew 24 a Category Two prophecy originating by none other than Jesus himself! Because of this, Christians have no choice but to say that his “return prophecy” must occur in the future because it was not fulfilled in the past. How many dual prophecies will Christians put in Jesus’ mouth in order to protect their religion and pride? How many more years or “dispensations” have to be doctored up so Christ can tarry even more? The author of Hebrews wrote, “For yet a little while, and he that shall come [Jesus] will come, and will not tarry” (Heb 10:37).

There is an air of relief about Christianity that when Christians are posed with questions about Jesus’ failure to fulfill Category One prophecies, they need only answer, “He will do it in His Second Coming.” It must be fully understood by Christians at this point that Jesus did not fulfill any Messianic prophecies and the fallacy of claiming that he will do so in a ‘Second Advent’ is denying the evidence that has been presented in this book so far. The Second Coming is a necessary tactic used by Christianity to keep its followers. Because of this, millions have been deceived into believing that Jesus was messiah and God.

Will Jesus be coming quickly in another 2000 years? Will he continue to tarry for another 5000 years? When does the madness end?

Claim #5: FALSE

Chapter Six: The Suffering Servant

Claim #6: Jesus is the Suffering Servant!

For Christians, Isaiah 53 is a prophecy about Jesus’ ministry. They believe the “Servant” mentioned in 53 is the messiah who is supposed to be hated and rejected by the Jews, sent to die with criminals and was to vindicate the world through his death. Events in Jesus’ life appear to correspond to various aspects of chapter 53. Are these events interpolated by the authors of the Gospel or are they actual recorded events? We don’t know for sure, but what we can do is study the text of Isaiah 53 and see whether or not this is truly a Messianic prophecy.

Was the Messiah supposed to die for our sins? Was he to be rejected and despised by the Jews of his time? These have important implications for Christianity because the idea of Jesus’ vicarious atonement depends on the presumption that Isaiah 53 is talking about him.

Isaiah 52

The best way to approach Isaiah 53 is to first understand that it is a continuation of Isaiah 52. Remember that the chapter divisions were put in by the Church. In modern literature, the mark of a new chapter brings a new idea. Those unaware may believe the same when it comes to the chapter divisions in the Tenakh and this may be a factor in the Christian misunderstanding of the correct interpretation of Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 52 [1917 JPS Edition, bold highlighting mine]: “(1) Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. (2) Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem; loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. (3) For thus saith YHWH: ye were sold for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. (4) For thus saith the Lord YHWH: My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. (5) Now therefore, what do I here, saith YHWH, seeing that My people is taken away for nought? They that rule over them do howl, saith YHWH, and My name continually all the day is blasphemed. (6) Therefore My people shall know My name; therefore they shall know in that day that I, even He that spoke, behold, here I am. (7) How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings, that announceth peace, the harbinger of good tidings, that announceth salvation; that saith unto Zion: 'Thy God reigneth!' (8) Hark, thy watchmen! they lift up the voice, together do they sing; for they shall see, eye to eye, YHWH returning to Zion. (9) Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for YHWH hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed Jerusalem. (10) YHWH hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. (11) Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, ye that bear the vessels of YHWH. (12) For ye shall not go out in haste, neither shall ye go by flight; for YHWH will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rearward. (13) Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. (14) According as many were appalled at thee -- so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men -- (15) So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive. (53:1) 'Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of YHWH been revealed? (2) For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him. (3) He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (4) Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (5) But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. (6) All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and YHWH hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. (7) He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth. (8) By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. (9) And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his deaths; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.' (10) Yet it pleased YHWH to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of YHWH might prosper by his hand: (11) Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear. (12) Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

  Isaiah 52 takes place at a time when Jerusalem shall be redeemed and the people of Israel are saved from the Nations. “Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem; loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. For thus saith YHWH: ye were sold for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money” (52:3-4). The key word here is captivity; therefore Israel has been in a state of captivity from Gentile nations.

“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings, that announceth peace, the harbinger of good tidings, that announceth salvation; that saith unto Zion: 'Thy God reigneth!'. Hark, thy watchmen! they lift up the voice, together do they sing; for they shall see, eye to eye, YHWH returning to Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for YHWH hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed Jerusalem” (52:7-9). When YHWH returns to Zion, it is an inference that the Temple is rebuilt, Jerusalem is inhabited and that the sin of the people is forgiven to merit God’s presence.

“YHWH hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, ye that bear the vessels of YHWH. For ye shall not go out in haste, neither shall ye go by flight; for YHWH will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rearward” (52:10-12). This final redemption shall be seen by all the nations of the world. This could only be done in our modern day and age of television and internet. When God “bares His holy arm” it is a significant term of God’s immense redemptive power absent of the assistance of Israel’s own repentance. YHWH is Israel’s shield and rear guard.

The commandment to touch no thing unclean is clearly referring to the Torah which commands the Jews to discern between clean and unclean. If this is the Christian messianic age, should not the Torah be abolished since Jesus fulfilled it?

“Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high” (52:13). Here is the appearance of the Servant (עַבְדִּי). The Hebrew reads “av’dee”/“My servant”, meaning the Servant is YHWH’s possession and is under His authority. The Servant is lifted up and exalted from a place of captivity and shame to a place amongst the nations in Jerusalem. Who is the Servant? We must first look at the context of Isaiah 52.

We are looking for a singular noun because “av’dee” indicates a singular entity . Within Isaiah 52, we find the following singular nouns: Zion, Jerusalem, daughter of Zion, “My people” and messenger. The answer is obvious. All of these singular nouns are collective descriptions for the people of Israel.

Before we go any further, it is important to note that it is at this point (52:13) where most Christians begin interjecting Jesus into the Servant’s Song. Most times, they will completely ignore the context of the chapter which explicitly talks about Israel and its redemption by the Holy Arm of God. They will also reject the notion that the Servant is Israel.

“Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. According as many were appalled at thee -- so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men -- So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive”(52:13-15). The entire premise of Isaiah 52 and 53 are centered on Israel’s redemption and what the nations around them, who persecuted them, thought about their salvation. Let’s understand that this is all in the context of a future event in which people are looking back in retrospect about Israel.

We read that the Servant’s appearance was disfigured unlike that of a man and his form unlike a human. What does this mean? Let us consider Israel and the Jew in history. Israel was always seen as a blemish on the earth, a thorn in the side of the nations. Even today, Israel is viewed by the world as disfigured by alleged human rights abuses towards Palestinians, “illegal occupation” of West Bank territories and using excessive force against mere “militants”. Biased press coverage gives Israel the appearance of a bully in the Middle East and the cause of all terrorism against the West and even the reason for high gas prices.

What about the individual Jew? A common Jew was once characterized by his distinctive dress. The long side curls, the untrimmed beard, the odd-looking fringes hanging out underneath their shirts. The black hats, the skull caps. The Jew represents everything that is different from mainstream society and for that reason; his appearance is unlike that of a man- a man in the eyes of the pagan, Gentile world.

Even though the Gentiles have this distorted, evil view of the people of Israel, they are even more amazed that God redeems them and that they are his treasured people! “So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive” (52:15). The Servant will startle the Gentile nations. Even kings and rulers will close their mouths because of him. Why? Because they will see what they have not been told and they shall understand what they did not hear.

What is it about the Servant that has caused the kings and presidents of the Gentile nations to shut their mouths and understand things they would have otherwise never understood? The Gentile kings of the nations declare in unison: “‘who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of YHWH been revealed?’” (53:1). The Nations ask “Who could possibly believe what we heard?” They have seen the arm of YHWH having been revealed to all of the nations- to them! 52:10 mentions this very event as the cause of Israel’s redemption. The Nations have witnessed Israel’s salvation by the arm of God and are speechless as a result. They thought that Israel was destined to be destroyed, despised and ridiculed forever! They thought that God had done away with Israel. Does this sound familiar? It sounds like Christian and Moslem doctrines of “replacement theology”. Might the rulers of the Nations speaking here be Christian or Moslem in some way?

The Nations look back in retrospect regarding Israel’s past and their collective treatment of the Holy Nation throughout history. This is the main content of Isaiah 53. The Gentile nations say, “ ’For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him’” (53:2).

Both the Hebrews and the modern State of Israel arose as a sapling and root from dry ground. The people of Israel had a destiny that was in question. The Patriarchs persisted amongst famine, wars, fraternal strife and idol worshippers. The Hebrews were on the verge of extinction by God Himself for their sins of the Golden Calf (Ex 32). The righteous struggled amongst false prophets, evil kings, idol worshippers. The people as a whole survived amongst exile, death and persecution. How can we forget the murders of the first born in Egypt, Purim, Hanukkah, Catholic inquisitions, forced conversions and the Holocaust? The modern State of Israel arose from the ashes of the Holocaust and its destiny has been tested by wars, international pressure, corrupt leaders, terrorism and a fatal “peace plan”. This uncertainty of Israel’s survival is the meaning of the “dry ground” simile.

The Nations looked upon Israel as having no beauty that they should ever desire or have pleasure in him. This hearkens back to 52:13 and 14 regarding the “marred appearance”. What did Israel have that the Gentiles wanted that they should be like Israel or delight in its treasures? The Gentile, both Christian and Moslem saw no beauty in the Torah and the ways of YHWH.

“’He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not’” (53:3). Who could possibly be more despised and forsaken than the Jew? These pains and diseases are metaphors for his afflictions throughout history. Notice the similar words and ideas in other sections of Isaiah:

·        “And He said unto me: 'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified…’”; “Thus saith YHWH, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of men, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: kings shall see and arise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of YHWH that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who hath chosen thee...” (49:3,7)

·        “For YHWH hath called thee as a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit; and a wife of youth, can she be rejected? saith thy God. (7) For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great compassion will I gather thee”; “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of YHWH, and their due reward from Me, saith YHWH” (54: 6, 17).

·        “And the sons of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee, and all they that despised thee shall bow down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee The city of YHWH, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man passed through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations” (60:14-15).

The Nations continue their retrospect saying, “’Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed’” (53:4-5). This is one of the main proof texts Christians use to prove the Messiah had an atoning death. But again, the subject here is the Servant Israel. Any other interpretation would be ignoring the context of both chapters 52 and 53. So what does this mean?

The discrepancy between what both Christians and Jews understand in these verses is a matter of semantics. Recall that the Nations are talking about the Servant Israel in retrospect. The phrases “our diseases he did bear”, “our pains he carried” are referring to the evils, persecutions, tortures, imprisonments and murders the nations carried out against Israel and Jews. Israel bore these things not as a vicarious atonement but as a punishment for their own sins and rebellions against God.

Little did the Nations know that they were being used by God to punish Israel for their sins and transgressions. The Nations were also clueless to the historical fact that God destroys the Nations that He uses to afflict Israel for their own sins because those Nations are also guilty of sin! Having finally understood this, the Nations say, “’…the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed’” (53:5). Read closely: if Israel does not sin against YHWH, He will not send the Nations against Israel and then destroy those Nations. Furthermore, persecution and exile against Israel resulted in an Israel that was repentant and righteous automatically keeping Gentile Nations from been led by God to destroy the Jews and in turn be destroyed themselves! Fascinating!

“’All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and YHWH hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth’” (53:6-7). The Nations now confess in their hearts that they have sinned by following false gods. The relationship between the Nations and Israel is symbiotic in that the Nations require Israel to be righteous so they will not be destroyed by God and Israel requires the Nations to keep them on the path of righteousness by the threat of exile, war and persecution.

The Gentile Nations see that Israel was oppressed and never took a definitive stand against the punishment metered out against it because of its sins. Israel knew that its exiles and chastisements were justly given out by YHWH and therefore never questioned God’s judgment.

 “’By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due’” (53:8). This statement further elaborates Israel’s historical punishments and exiles from the Land. Again the Gentile kings declare Israel’s punishments are the result their own sins.

“’And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his deaths; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth’” (53:9). The Nations buried Israel along with the scum of the earth. The Church and Islam have equated Jews to criminals, guilty of deicide and rejecting their beliefs. The wealthy, including kings, popes and businesses assisted in the deaths and persecutions of Jews. Recall that German businesses contributed to the development of concentration camps and the gas chambers. These specific crimes were a result of the hearts of wicked men, independent of the justice of God. The persecutions of the Jews by Haman, Antiochus Epiphanies, Christians, Moslems, Nazis and other anti-Semitic regimes were not a result of any sin of the Jews but the hearts and minds of wicked men. For these sins, the Nations say, Israel was not guilty of anything.

Concerning this verse, we must ask, “did Jesus have ‘deaths’?” The Hebrew reads “בְּמֹתָיו” or “b’motaw” meaning “his deaths”. The King James Version incorrectly translates this as “death” to further the Christian propaganda that Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus of Nazareth’s crucifixion. Interesting how many Christians emphasize this particular point and disregard all the other information shown here. It’s pick and choose as usual.

“ ‘Yet it pleased YHWH to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of YHWH might prosper by his hand’” (53:10). The Nations knew that it pleased YHWH to persecute Israel when they rebelled against the Torah in order to bring about its virtue of repentance and restoration. Israel’s righteousness required that its offspring would grow to be righteous as well and inherit the Land that YHWH gave thus perpetuating His blessings on Israel.

Also, when did Jesus have “seed”? Well, if we were all believers in books like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” and the “Da Vinci Code”, we may say that it was possible Jesus had children. Christians will say that the “seed” spoken of here is “spiritual seed” as in disciples and followers. The Hebrew states something different. The Hebrew word for seed is “זֶרַע” which definitely denotes physical offspring. “Zer’a” always refers to “semen” or “seed”. If Christians would get over the silly tradition that Jesus was childless, they would have “extra ammo” so to speak in using Isaiah 53:10 as a proof text!

Now God returns speaking about His Servant Israel, saying, “Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear” (53:11). YHWH will see that Israel’s suffering will be complete in order for it to persist in its main goal: to use its knowledge of God and Torah to relate Mankind to God. And if they are not doing their job, they will bear the iniquities of the Nations as a punishment for their sins.  Just how did Jesus justify YHWH to the Nations with his knowledge? Are Christians finally admitting the Gnostic influences on Christianity? Was not the hallmark of his ministry his own death which brought salvation and brought Man closer to God?

“Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (53:12). The riches of the Suffering Servant shall be shared with those nations who blessed it and sought its welfare. Israel’s virtue was on account of its survival through persecution and its rightful understanding of its purpose and reasons for punishment. An exiled Israel interceded for the Nations by prayer because the peace in which the Jews dwelt in their host nation depended on the spiritual and physical well-bring of that nation.

Recall that Germany and Russia turned against the Jews when their material well-being was crushed by World War One. Their physical degeneration down-spiraled into spiritual degeneration and created the wholly evil Nazi regime that put Jews at the forefront of the cause of Germany’s problems. Were the Jews praying and interceding on Germany’s behalf? We do not know.

We have seen that the Servant is indeed Israel having closely considered the contexts of Isaiah 52 and 53. It seems that Christians only pick and choose the parts that seem to fit well in Christian theology while ignoring the rest of the chapters and their contexts.

The Servant is not the Messiah Ben Dawid. He is the Nation of Israel- God’s beloved and treasured people. Although it is not a messianic prophecy it may set in the context of the Messiah’s arrival.

It is important to understand that YHWH alone grants redemption, not a People, not a person. How could the Servant be a man-god? If Jesus is God, how can he be subservient to himself? The whole idea is completely foreign to the Tenakh and it only characteristic of pagan, Gentile religions.

A Brief Hypothesis

How did Christianity begin assuming the Servant was Jesus? We can only speculate. Since their beginning, Category One prophecies have shown that the Messiah is a King and a Warrior who brings Israel to peace by crushing its enemies. It was probably very apparent back in Jesus’ time that he neither had the influence nor power to physically overthrow Rome, Pharisees and the Sadducees from Judea. After Jesus died, being a political criminal, the authors of the Gospels may have had to assume that the entire purpose of the messiah was to die for the sins of Israel.

The early disciples may have believed that they did not read the Scriptures right or that they were blinded by some unseen hand. So that the Nazarenes would not scatter because their leader was dead, and so their morale and belief would not be shattered, the heads of Christianity had to make sure that Jesus death was not only prophesied, but made significant as well.

This may have been the start of the earliest Christian post-interpretive biases. They realized they had problems with Jesus since he did not fulfill any obvious Messianic prophecies; so they had to make prophecies for Jesus to fulfill. This hypothesis may seem like a stretch but it makes very good sense for the reason (and lack thereof) of Christianity’s ridiculous claims. Isaiah 53 may have been one of the first Category Two prophecies that Christians considered to be Messianic.

Consider also that the true Kingdom of Heaven was an actual kingdom ruled by the Messiah Ben Dawid with the presence of YHWH in the Temple. It was not a “spiritual kingdom” that did no earthly good. Since Jesus was dead, and did not return (see ‘Jesus’ False Prophecy’), the heads of Christianity pressed the “panic” button and came up with a new idea of not only a “Spiritual Kingdom”, but a “Second Coming” and “Spiritual Israel” as well. The inception of a spiritual Kingdom of Heaven may have also been doctored by the authors and editors of the Gospels because the Jews fully expected a physical kingdom with a very real king- not one who sat in the heavens somewhere. The creation of a “Spiritual Israel” allowed the multitudes of Gentiles to believe themselves to be in God’s graces when in fact their rejection of the Torah only separated them further from Him.

I will repeat a statement from the previous chapter: it must be fully understood by Christians at this point that Jesus did not fulfill any Messianic prophecies and the fallacy of claiming that he will do so in a ‘Second Advent’ is denying the lack of evidence that has been presented here. The Second Coming is a necessary tactic used by Christianity to keep its followers.

There is an air of relief about Christianity that when Christians are posed with questions about Jesus’ failure to fulfill Category One prophecies, they need only answer, “He will do it in His Second Coming.” This is very dangerous and presumptuous.

To Serve and Protect

We have looked into the Servant’s identity within the contexts of Isaiah 52 and 53. We have seen that the Servant is indeed the People of Israel. Let’s go into other parts of Isaiah and see where else the term “Servant” is used. This tactic makes perfect sense. It would be best to interpret “servant” from Isaiah 52 and 53 based on the same book, written by the same author that uses the same language.

“But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend; Thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the uttermost parts thereof, and said unto thee: 'Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away'; Fear thou not, for I am with thee, be not dismayed, for I am thy God; I strengthen thee, yea, I help thee; yea, I uphold thee with My victorious right hand” (41:8-10).

“Who is blind, but My servant? Or deaf, as My messenger that I send? Who is blind as he that is wholehearted, and blind as YHWH'S servant? Seeing many things, thou observest not; opening the ears, he heareth not” (42:19-20)

“ Ye are My witnesses, saith YHWH, and My servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me there was no God formed, neither shall any be after Me. I, even I, am YHWH; and beside Me there is no saviour” (43:10-11).

“ Yet now hear, O Jacob My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen; Thus saith YHWH that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, who will help thee: Fear not, O Jacob My servant, and thou, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen…Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for thou art My servant; I have formed thee, thou art Mine own servant; O Israel, thou shouldest not forget Me” (44: 1-2,21).

“ For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee by thy name, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known Me” (45:4).

“Go ye forth from Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans; with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye: 'YHWH hath redeemed His servant Jacob” (48:20).

“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of YHWH, and their due reward from Me, saith YHWH” (54:17).

There is more than enough evidence here to conclude that when God speaks about “servants” or a “Servant”- it is without a doubt Israel. To deny the Scriptural evidence is to be in complete and utter slavery to one’s bias and presuppositions. The use of the Servant in the context of Israel constantly uses phrases of redemption and judgment; hope and salvation and God’s revealing of His Power to the World. These themes are also found in Isaiah 52 and 53 creating a solid case for Israel’s place as the Servant.

Ah-Hah! But What about THIS!?

Already Christians run to Ezekiel and point out the following: “And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I YHWH will be their God, and My servant David prince among them; I YHWH have spoken” (Eze 34:23-24). Obviously this is a Category One prophecy that mentions the Messiah David as God’s servant. There’s no argument here but tell me where in the Tenakh does it explicitly say the Messiah is supposed to be rejected, die for the sins of the world, and have a second coming?

There are many servants mentioned in the Tenakh, ranging from Moses (Dt 34:5), Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:6), Israel (Jer 30:10), the Messiah (Zech 3:8) and others. The question is not so much a matter of definition, but a matter of context, something which has been stressed here since the beginning. The language and themes used surrounding the Servant in Isaiah 52 and 53 are consistent with other places in Isaiah which explicitly mention Israel as the Servant.

In conclusion, Isaiah 53 is not a dramatic proof text which states that the Messiah would be rejected and die a vicarious death. Christians use this chapter as one of their main proofs for Jesus’ rejection by the Jews and his vicarious death. We have seen this to be untrue based on the context and other uses of the word “Servant” in Isaiah. Isaiah 53 is a Category Two prophecy which only Christians believe is referring to the Messiah. Their messiah allegedly fulfilled this prophecy which was never a Messianic prophecy to begin with. Essentially, Jesus fulfilled nothing and indeed died in vain as Paul worried about so much (see Galatians 2:21).

Claim #6: FALSE

Chapter Seven: “The LORD Said Unto My Lord…”

Claim #7: Jesus is GOD!

Sonny Boy

          Christians have many reasons why they believe Jesus is God. One of most famous reasons was a conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-46. “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him (the son) of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any (man) from that day forth ask him any more (questions).”

            Jesus was asking the Pharisees how the heck the Messiah could be the son of David and yet David calls him “Lord”? Apparently, this stupefied the Pharisees (interestingly enough) and from this, Christians believe that Jesus was implying his own divinity and that the Messiah must be God.

            Let’s look at Psalm 110:1 in English: “A Psalm of David. YHWH saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’”

            Now let’s look at it in Hebrew: “לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר | נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ:” 

            First of all, we need to ask, who wrote this Psalm? The word “לְדָוִד” (L’Dawid) can mean either to, for or by David. In most cases, the use of the word “L’Dawid” means “by David” denoting his authorship. If David indeed wrote Psalm 110, how could we interpret it?

            David says that YHWH spoke unto his (David’s) lord. Who was David’s master? David had very few people above him. In the beginning of his adventures, King Saul was his master even though Saul hated him. Even Samuel was David’s master, having been anointed as king by him. But the rest of Psalm 110 seems to be speaking about neither Saul nor Samuel. Most commentators both Jewish and Christian agree that this must be a Messianic prophecy or more specifically, a Category One prophecy. The “lord” David spoke of was indeed the Messiah Ben Dawid.

            There is nothing wrong with this interpretation. However, because of Matthew 22:41-46, Christians believe that the Messiah can’t be David’s “lord” (or offspring) if the descendant wasn’t even born yet. Therefore, the Messiah must be “pre-existing” and as a result, divine. This pre-existent “Logos” or “Primal Adam” is a Gnostic belief that was popular in Christianity.

            This unreasonable idea is not the fault of Christians this time; but rather Jesus’ fault. Jesus is assuming that the Messiah can’t be David’s descendant and master at the same time. To Jesus, this is a fallacy. But is it? Who says that the Messiah cannot be David’s descendant and master at the same time? Who says that the Messiah must be Divine in order to accomplish this? Must he “pre-exist” in heaven?[6]

            This is obviously an error based on a presumption and a bias that perhaps Jesus held to (assuming Jesus even said these words and they weren’t interpolated by editors looking to prove something). There is also evidence that Jesus was either influenced by or was an Essene- one of whose doctrines was the pre-existent Logos or Primal Adam.

            Let’s ask a question: is there a possibility that your descendant can be greater in both prestige and power than you? Also, what term do we as English speakers use when we address someone with greater respect and authority than ourselves? Is it not the word “sir”? The term “לַאדֹנִי” (ladonee) means “to my lord”. “Adonee” (my lord) is a term used extensively throughout the Tenakh by people when addressing someone of greater authority than themselves. Just crack open a concordance and see the myriad appearance of “adonee” in the Bible. The term “adon” and its variant “adonee” are the equivalent to the English “sir”, “lord” or “master”. We could even throw in the Italian endearment “Don” as a translation of “adon” and “adonee”.

Having said all the above, do you think it is impossible that David, in a prophetic state, saw the Messianic Age with his descendant ruling over the world in wisdom and righteousness and called him “lord”? Of course not! Such a possibility is very reasonable.

You’re Missing the Point

Of course, Christians like to point out that it’s not even a question about if it’s possible whether or not the Messiah can be David’s descendant and lord. They point out that David was calling the Messiah “lord” as in LORD God. To Christians, this is proof positive that David acknowledged the Messiah as Divine. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, this is another example of ignorance and deception. Let’s see how the claim holds up.

Let’s first identify the ignorance. It should be common knowledge that every time the word “LORD” appears in capitals in a King James Bible, it means “YHWH”. Therefore when you read from Ezekiel 22:28 “…thus saith the LORD God…” it really means “thus saith YHWH God”.

Sometimes, the word “Lord” appears in translation without any capitals, but with a capital “L”. Why? In all these cases, the Hebrew for “Lord” is “אֲדֹנָי” (transliterated as “Adonai”). “Adonai” is a term specifically reserved for YHWH. It is an extremely formal and reverent variation of the formal “אדֹנִי” (“adonee”). Make no mistake about this, please.

When we read Psalm 110, “A Psalm of David. YHWH saith unto my lord…” the word “lord” is in fact NOT “Adonai” but “adonee”. Proof of this is found in any concordance. Study the Hebrew text and see for yourself: “לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר | נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי” Therefore, the “lord” that David is referring to has nothing to do with YHWH and is not Divine by any stretch of the imagination (well, only by a stretch of the imagination).

Now for the deception. The King James Version writes Psalm 110:1 as follows: “The LORD said unto my Lord…” Were you sharp enough to catch the deception? The King James translator capitalizes the “L” on “Lord” causing those who don’t know any better to assume that the “Lord” David is speaking of is Divine. This is proof-positive of a Christian translator actually changing the meaning of the word to suit his own post-interpretive bias. The reason for the capitalization of “lord” in the King James Psalm 110 is because the translators also held to the interpretation of Matthew 22:41-46 as a proof of Jesus’ divinity therefore deliberately changing the meaning of the word. But the translators didn’t stop there. They also capitalized the word “lord” and put it in Jesus’ mouth when he quoted Psalm 110 in Matthew 22: 44-45. Check it out.

When somebody knows how to read Hebrew, they can immediately distinguish between an English translation of “LORD” and “lord”. If you hear those two words in English, you cannot possibly tell whether which refers to God and the other refers to a king. However, one can hear the difference between the two Hebrew words “Adonai” and “adonee” and know for a fact that one implies YHWH while the other is reserved for humans.

Psalm 110 is a premise from which Christians get the doctrine that Jesus is both God and messiah. But as we have seen, it is ridiculous and displays a bias on the part of Jesus as well as ignorance on the part of most Christians. We saw how even translators can deliberately interpret something incorrectly just to fulfill their own agenda. Jesus is neither God nor messiah.

Claim #7: FALSE