Відео

6:15 They are both listed as son/fathers of, not descendants. Both are listing the direct lineage. Your interpretation is not consistent with what the Bible presents.

Well, I don't know about other messianic communities, but the Baruch HaShem Congregation in San Antonio, mainly Sephardic Jews, are definitely Shabbat keepers, with a complete liturgy for Erev Shabbat and Boker Shabbat as well as the Havdallah just before the sunset of Shabbat. And to compare to the Orthodox Jewish keeping of the Shabbat that is void of over 320 prophecies for the first coming of HaMachiach, is not fair. I respect the Jews keeping the Torah these past 2000 years of persecution by devout Christians in both the Western and Eastern Europe. I visited the local Holocaust Memorial in San Antonio and saw the travesty of inhuman treatment of Jews in Germany and elsewhere. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Shalom.

He didn’t even answer it. The only explanation was “bc it was in the Greek translation”

So much easier for Catholics who actually accept the Greek scriptures.

Funny, I witness creations marviouls accident and slumber from that big bang to the start of the last century and i still have not found my name in any of history , and im way older than Jesus. Anyways, be good to each other as Gods here with hou as one of you.❤

No no body in the heaven or hereafter area needed, but im going to keep the image of my meat suit just because this container has been one dam good tuff and ridable one. We dont die, and can when we see fit as all of you too have the ability in you to heal with touch and stay young, you all grow old frail and get sickly and die simply because this is the way you were taught and my freinds this is not true. You choose when to die not when your parents say, there are a handful of humans here that are a few hundred years old but look 34. They know as i know who they are.

Isreal is not the servant of Isreal who pays for the sin of Isreal??? What are you talking about. You don't need a degree to unserstand that this is completly false

Jews can not accept another God, because they EXPERIENCED HASHEM, their God: Only the EXPERIENCE of Hashem fulfilling Jer 31 will give them the TRUTH of HOW Messiah rises in them: SUMMARY of the BIBLICAL explanation: Adam was meant to be Mashiach and in truth IS Messiah but Adam (we are collectively Adam) has to repent (do Teshuvah) to the GOOD ROOT he rejected (this is the Messiah) so the good root can INVERT to the crown (Keter) which is the ANOINTING or BLOOD OF HASHEM that from the skull can flow to the whole body of the resurrected Adam: Messiah started being revealed through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob who is still RISING ASCENDING over Esau (hairy physical part of Isaac) till all of Jacob has been ANOINTED (gotten their birthright) to rise above Esau, the hairy physical part of Jacob, who is the SMOOTH SOUL of Esau: Most people, even the people of Israel, have no idea that they are also Esau who can NOT REPENT (do teshuvah-) to get the anointing and become part of Messiah: ALL ISRAEL WILL BE THE MESSIAH, the resurrected ADAM and Israel will be as the stars in heaven and sands of the sea: How do I know this? I was anointed in 1992, 26 years after I believed in the Messiah (Jesus) but when I was anointed, I realized Jesus is not a person but the NAME OF THE ANOINTED LAST ADAM, the collective many membered body we are baptized INTO: The gentiles will call this MAN (Last Adam) Jesus but the Jews can call him whatever they want: Either way, Adam is resurrected beginning with Abraham, Isaac the spiritual SEED of Hashem, the YACHIDA, and Jacob in whom the YACHIDA must continue through ALL ISRAEL as the CROWN (keter of life/chai): Yachida is the ONLY SON (from the root yachid=TO JOIN) in whom all Israel will be brought to glory that will cover the earth as the waters (TORAH) cover the sea (subconscious):making the last Adam conscious of Hashem everywhere; HASHEM is already everywhere but the VESSEL of vanity, the ego of Adam, his EXILE, keeps the eyes, ears, nose, well all five physical senses from sensing HASHEM: ONLY the ANOINTING, the YACHIDA, the OIL that rises from within us through David (the good and virgin ground of our being, within the deep part of the heart) will enable the YACHIDA the GOOD ROOT to rise in us, invert in us, through the sea/subconscious, and take the SOUL (Israel) out of the physical senses ESAU: ASK Hashem if I am telling the truth: HOW do we get the Yachida to rise, the anointing to rise? DENY your EGO, the exile, the vessel of vanity so the YACHIDA gets first billing in you and rises to the heart first and then the place of the skull to release your soul through KETER to JOIN to Hashem who is all around you: adding, when Yachida (Messiah) rises in you through DESIRE FOR HASHEM, desire for Messiah, he rises through the subconscious (left hand, right brain): This is the meaning of the people of Nineveh didn't know their right hand from their left: The right hand is HaSatan till the Messiah rises by the left (feminine side, desire) and when he has risen to the heart, then the right hand is ready to be EXCHANGED FOR THE ARM OF HASHEM, revealed as your NEW right hand: NOW the left follows her true husband, and not the ego any longer: (this is the story of David, Abigail and Nabal): Abigail is married to Nabal (stupid foolish wicked man) who is the (yetzer and Lashon hora) the abomination of desolation in the heart, inner court of the temple that Messiah removes): The NEW right arm of Hashem, his YACHIDA, takes the soul up above to the place of the skull to get the SOUL OUT OF THE BODY through the stiff neck after cutting the covenant through the stony heart where the law is written but not grasped as a tree of life: Isaiah 8:8, and at this point, Judah has kept his VOW to bring Messiah (Nahum 1:15 and the wicked will pass through him no more: It takes 30 pieces of silver Zech 11, Mal 3, cleansed, to bring enough DESIRE FOR MESSIAH to the soul: SILVER=DESIRE, GOLD=LOVE: Only the 30 (LAMED, letter that goes above the line) can give you the Messiah (OIL) to raise you above your self/ego, vessel of vanity, vanity all is vanity: So when you get that desire, it is given by the priest (Aaron/Levi) to the POTTER (HASHEM) and he gives you the OFFERING of Judah (Yachida) that is now PLEASANT to the LORD and you get a NEW VESSEL of HONOR (TETH) in whom Hashem CAN LIVE and WALK IN YOU:

I’m sorry to say this but he’s so wrong. Heli and Jacob can’t both be the father of Joseph.

There are so many problems with what brown claims. He fails in almost every statement he says. Anyone who thinks this rubbish is credible is as blind as brown is. brown, read the rest of Isiah ch 7 the actual sign is there read on for the fulfillment

Another person making up their own rules and interpretations. Read the Church Fathers.

This has never been a problem for those who hold the view of pre millennial. It seems pretty straightforward, i did not know there was a great difficulty in understanding. The pre millennial view are the beliefs of the early Christians.

Question: "Is Jesus God in the flesh? Why is it important that Jesus is God in the flesh?" Answer: Since Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-38), the real identity of Jesus Christ has always been questioned by skeptics. It began with Mary's fiancé, Joseph, who was afraid to marry her when she revealed that she was pregnant (Matthew 1:18-24). He took her as his wife only after the angel confirmed to him that the child she carried was the Son of God. Hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of God's Son: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). When the angel spoke to Joseph and announced the impending birth of Jesus, he alluded to Isaiah’s prophecy: "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God with us’)" (Matthew 1:23). This did not mean they were to name the baby Immanuel; it meant that "God with us" was the baby’s identity. Jesus was God coming in the flesh to dwell with man. Jesus Himself understood the speculation about His identity. He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27). The answers varied, as they do today. Then Jesus asked a more pressing question: "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). Peter gave the right answer: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus affirmed the truth of Peter’s answer and promised that, upon that truth, He would build His church (Matthew 16:18). The true nature and identity of Jesus Christ has eternal significance. Every person must answer the question Jesus asked His disciples: "Who do you say that I am?" He gave us the correct answer in many ways. In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." The Bible is clear about the divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ (see John 1:1-14). Philippians 2:6-7 says that, although Jesus was "in very nature God, He did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Colossians 2:9 says, “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Jesus is fully God and fully man, and the fact of His incarnation is of utmost importance. He lived a human life but did not possess a sin nature as we do. He was tempted but never sinned (Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15). Sin entered the world through Adam, and Adam’s sinful nature has been transferred to every baby born into the world (Romans 5:12)-except for Jesus. Because Jesus did not have a human father, He did not inherit a sin nature. He possessed the divine nature from His Heavenly Father. Jesus had to meet all the requirements of a holy God before He could be an acceptable sacrifice for our sin (John 8:29; Hebrews 9:14). He had to fulfill over three hundred prophecies about the Messiah that God, through the prophets, had foretold (Matthew 4:13-14; Luke 22:37; Isaiah 53; Micah 5:2). Since the fall of man (Genesis 3:21-23), the only way to be made right with God has been the blood of an innocent sacrifice (Leviticus 9:2; Numbers 28:19; Deuteronomy 15:21; Hebrews 9:22). Jesus was the final, perfect sacrifice that satisfied forever God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:14). His divine nature made Him fit for the work of Redeemer; His human body allowed Him to shed the blood necessary to redeem. No human being with a sin nature could pay such a debt. No one else could meet the requirements to become the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (Matthew 26:28; 1 John 2:2). If Jesus were merely a good man as some claim, then He had a sin nature and was not perfect. In that case, His death and resurrection would have no power to save anyone. Because Jesus was God in the flesh, He alone could pay the debt we owed to God. His victory over death and the grave won the victory for everyone who puts their trust in Him (John 1:12; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 17).

Християнството и Исляма са най големите езически, Богохулни, идолопоклоннически, и измамни религии в Света. Бог няма да им позволи вечно да развяват езическите си байраци.

Пастирът Исус поведе измамно овцете си към грешният път, през който ще трябва и да се връщат. Ако ли пък не, ще трябва да скачат от високата пропаст където ще бъдат погубени.

О заблудени Християни: Знайте че Исус нито е Пътят, нито е Истината, и нито е Животът. Също нито е Месията, нито и някога ще бъде!

The issue was, after Ezra reformed Yahweh religion to monotheist Judaism, they suppressed polytheist content. For instance; Deut 32:8-9. In Daniel 9:24, for example, who on this earth beside Yahweh dares to claim they can do it, name one? Those who dares is directly attacking Yahweh deity.

Could the "Righteous Servant " in Isaiah 53 be a rabid sinner and one who committed abominations and still be considered more righteous than the wicked, heathen and pagan? I am compiling names, descriptions and terms used by YHWH himself in the Tanach Neviim (Old Testament) prophets and Torah where YHWH is speaking to His People Israel & Judah through his prophets and even Moses and these are some of the things he has said of them. Israel Isaiah 53 Righteous Servant? Transgressors, Stubborn, Abhorrent, Rebellious, Harlot, Unfaithful Wife, Stiffnecked, Adultress, Lo-Ami = Not my People, Harlot who pays her lovers, Provokers, Smoke in His Nose, Treacherous wife, Faithless, Lying Children, Deceitful Children, Unwilling to obey instruction, Hearts not loyal, Despisers of His Word, Broke the everlasting covenant, They Heap sin upon sin, a perverse and crooked generation, foolish people and unwise, Jeshurun (Poetic Name for Israel) waxed fat and kicked, lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation, They sacrificed unto devils, thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten El that formed thee, they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith, They have moved me to jealousy, they have provoked me to anger with their vanities, I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them, They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction, I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust, they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them,their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah, their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter, ....I have been listening to scripture for decades and hearing even more that need to be added so stay tuned, the list is still growing..... The Righteous servant is obviously and only Yahushua -Yeshua ha Moshiach = Jesus the Messiah. Feel free to copy this for the next time a Jewish person claims Israel is YAH's righteous servant in Isaiah 53. That claim is what got my ear to hearing these things and I decided to make a list of them. One important thing, Israel - the Jewish people are sinners like everybody else but.....WOE to anyone or nation who dares to step in and chastise them or do them any harm. Leave them alone for your own sakes and do no Harm to God's people on earth. He is dealing with them in His own way and anybody who gets between Yah and his people will be utterly destroyed, that is also written all through the prophets many many times. I love the Jewish People and support the heavily prophesied regathering in these last days of Israel back to their land and 100% stand with and support them forever. Here is a sample of just one short chapter in Ezekiel of What YHWH said to the prophet: Ezekiel 2 2:1 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. 2:2 And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me. 2:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. 2:4 For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Sovereign YHWH. 2:5 And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them. 2:6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. 2:7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious. 2:8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee. 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein; 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

YishiYahuw 7:14 (DSS/MT) vs MattittYah 1:23 YishiYahu 7:14 Therefore Aduwni himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the young woman is with a child, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-Al. Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by YAHUWAH through the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanu’Al. The Ibryith/Hebrew text in YishiYahuw has ‘almah’ meaning young woman, and not ‘bethulah’ that means virgin. It is also noted in YishiYahu 7:3 that YishiYahuw already had a son named Shear-Yishuwb (meaning the remnant shall return). Hence, the young women, a prophetess(YishiYahu 8:3) whom is YishiYahu’s wife been called ‘almah’ is more correctly rendered a ‘young woman’ than been ‘an unknown virgin’. The prophetess was also already known thus reads ‘ha almah’ in Ibryi which does not mean ‘a virgin’ that portrays yet to be known. Moreover, “she call’s him Immanu’Al” as portrayed in YishiYahu and not “they shall call him Immanu’Al”. The name ‘almah’ is also found in Mishle 30:19-20 to mean an adulteress woman. The prophetess will call him Immanu’Al prophesying on the southern kingdom, Yahudah. However, Aba YAHUWAH will instruct YishiYahu to call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz in (8:3-4) prophesying against the invading kingdoms from the north that “before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Dammeseq and the spoil of Shamaron shall be taken away before the king of Asshur” which affirms the sign of the boy during his maturity as revealed in YishiYahu 7:14-16.

Isaiah 7:14 is not talking about Jesus' "birth" at all. First of all, there is a difference between conception and birth. It's an important difference but we'll leave that aside for now. Matthew was noticing the similarity between what happened to Mary and what the Prophet Isaiah wrote. If we take our eye off of Mary's experience then we'll miss what Matthew is citing. Isaiah was not prophesying Jesus but Matthew connected the dots between what happened to Mary and what the Prophet Isaiah wrote. That's all. Furthermore, the word in Isaiah 7:14 is indeed the word for "virgin". The Old Testament in use during the first century was written in Greek - translated more than 200 years before Jesus was born. The much much later Masoretic Text, used to give us a Hebrew Old Testament was written a thousand years AFTER Jesus. We know what things were called in the Old Testament because the New Testament verifies these things. For example, the Masoretic Text leaves a question whether the Red Sea was called the Red Sea or was it called "the Sea of Reeds"? The New Testament doesn't raise that question because it cites passages from the Greek Old Testament that clearly uses the Greek word for the color Red. Isaiah 7:14 definitely uses the word "virgin" and Moses definitely crossed the "Red Sea". No more confusion.

Where in the biblical text does it explicitly state that the birth of Jesus the Christ would be miraculous?

I provided a ten part explanation to why I disagree with the orthodox doctrine on the “Virgin Birth”. Check them out. Feel free to respond.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.10 Genesis 2:24 can also be used to explain what “before they came together” is referring to in Matthew 1:18. -Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH. -“They shall be one flesh” means that they would become husband and wife. -So when the text says “before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost”, the author is simply saying before Joseph and Mary came together as one flesh, which means before they were officially husband and wife, Mary was pregnant with the child of promise. Strong’s Definitions: συνέρχομαι synérchomai, soon-er'-khom-ahee; from G4862 and G2064; to convene, depart in company with, associate with, or (specially), COHABIT (CONJUGALLY):-accompany, assemble (with), come (together), come (company, go) with, resort. Outline of Biblical Usage: -to come together -to assemble -of CONJUGAL COHABITATION -to go (depart) or come with one, -to accompany one •The meaning of COHABIT is to live together as or as if a married couple. •Cohabitation is when two adult partners live together but aren't married. •The word CONJUGAL comes from the Latin word, conjux, meaning "husband, wife." •Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjugalis, from conjug-, conjux husband, wife, from conjungere to join, unite in marriage. Note* We know that the definition that I chose to used for the term cohabitation is the correct one based off the context of Matthew 1:18. More specifically based off the term “espoused”.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.9 In reference to Matthew 1:18-20, some assert that Joseph thought Mary was unfaithful. If Mary was unfaithful (which Joseph would have assumed because the angel hadn’t appeared to him yet), do you honestly believe that Joseph would not have been upset when he found out that his soon to be wife was impregnated by someone else? I’ll answer that for you. Of course he would have been. And yet there’s not one single passage that illustrates how upset Joseph was with Mary because of her unfaithfulness. It appears that Joseph was unbothered by Mary’s unfaithfulness. Question. If you found out that your fiancé slept with another man and she got pregnant by that man, how would you react? Wouldn’t you be beyond angry? The fact that Joseph didn’t get upset with Mary about what occurred speaks volumes. It proves that Joseph could not have thought that someone else had gotten her pregnant. If someone else would have gotten Mary pregnant, Joseph would have been outraged but he wasn’t. This is not a baseless argument. It actually seems to be additional proof that validates the notion that Joseph could have been or was in fact the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.8 The curse of Jeconiah (which was under the old covenant) is a futile argument because Jesus the Christ did not sit on the throne during His first advent. So the first time Jesus the Christ came, he did not violate the judgement that was placed on Jeconiah. If we read Acts 2:30-31 we can clearly see that king David understood that Jesus the Christ was going to rise from the dead with all power and authority and then He (Jesus) would be able to sit upon the throne (which would be under the new covenant where all sins, including past sins will be forgiven) without violating the judgment that TMH place upon Jeconiah.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.7 Let’s examine Luke 3:23. But first let’s begin here. Round brackets (also called parentheses, especially in American English) are mainly used to separate off information that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you removed the bracketed material the sentence would still make perfectly good sense. With that being said let’s read Luke 3:23 without reading the information contained within parentheses. It reads, "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph...". It's clear when Luke 3:23 is read without reading the information contained within parentheses that Jesus the Christ was(is) in fact the earthly, biological son of Joseph. Defined the term "being" in Luke 3:23 and then examine how it’s used throughout the Bible (New Testament). Question. Was the phrase "as was supposed" in the original text? I don’t think it was. But correct me if I’m wrong. I recently was told that it was. This may be true when considering that the phrase “as was supposed” isn’t in italics.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.6 In regards to Luke 1:34 when Mary posed the question, “how shall this be seeing I know not a man?”. At that specific moment in time Mary never had sexual relations with a man before. Thats an obvious fact. But did she remain that way until after the birth of Jesus the Christ? By now one should know my answer. Let’s consider another point that I believe needs to be examined. Luke 1:27 states, “to a virgin espoused to a man named was Joseph…”. When we read Luke 1:34 with Luke 1:27 in mind, it seems to me that at that point Mary did not know that she was espoused to Joseph. Because if she did know, once the angel had revealed to her that she was going to bring forth the Christ, Mary would have automatically assumed or came to the conclusion that her and Joseph would eventually have sex and this is how what the angel said would come to pass. But instead Mary asked how shall this be seeing I know not a man? Mary posed this question because she was obviously unaware of her engagement to Joseph. I truly believe that this was an arranged marriage, one of which Mary was not privy to. Had Mary known that she was espoused to Joseph, I personally don't believe that she would have posed that question. See when people read Luke 1:34 they overlook the fact that Mary was unaware of her espousal to Joseph and therefore coming to a false conclusion on said topic.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.5 The term “overshadowed" when defined in Luke 1:35 has reference to a "preternatural influence", which has reference to supernatural guidance (or effect, direction, control, sway). Mary was being led by the Spirit when she went into the hill country with haste. Mary was also being led by the Spirit when (in my opinion) she and Joseph engaged in sexual relations. A great example of the LORD (or the Spirit of the LORD) intervening and leading one to fulfill His will can be found in Judges 14:4 (read Judges 14:1-3 for context). When the angel Gabriel told Mary that the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, Gabriel was telling Mary that the Holy Spirit will take control of her, guide and direct her. I’m basing my assertion off the English definition for the word “influence”. Remember, the term “influence” is in the Greek definition for the word “overshadow”. Hence, the phrase “preternatural influence”. Here’s the definition for influence: in·flu·ence /ˈinflo͝oəns/ Learn to pronounce noun the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. Question: Have any of you ever had an overwhelming (almost uncontrollable) desire to have sexual relations with someone before? In my opinion, that’s exactly what happened in Mary and Josephs situation. Note: Examine the synonyms for the term “influence” as well.

The Virgin Birth pt.4 My position on the virgin birth is once again this: Joseph is the earthly biological father of the Christ. If Joseph had nothing to do with Christ's birth, why is Joseph mentioned in both of Christ's genealogies? Why is Joseph referred to as the father(not stepfather) of Jesus by not only Mary(Luke 2:48) but by Philip(Jn. 1:45) and the Jews(Jn. 6:42) as well? Why is there a distinction being made in Hebrews 2:16 between the celestial(spiritual) and terrestrial(flesh)? Could it be that the author wants to inform his audience or his readers that the angels weren't created like man was created but Christ was? The text states that Jesus was made like unto His brethren. How was Jesus' brethren made? Jesus' brethren came into existence by way of a sexual act that transpired between a male and a female. If this is how Jesus' brethren were made, we can safely conclude that this is how Jesus himself obtain His fleshly body. Jesus' flesh was created from the seed of man(which Hebrews 2:16 seems to be alluding to). Reverting back to my point about Joseph being in Christ's genealogies. Let's examine Luke 3:23. If we removed the information within the parentheses, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged. This is how parentheses work. So let's remove "as was supposed" from Luke 3:23 for a moment. Luke 3:23 reads, Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph. It reads differently doesn't it? It's becomes clear that Joseph is in fact Christ's earthly biological father when we read this passage this way doesn't it? Even if we don't remove the information within parentheses, we'll still come to the same conclusion when we define the word "supposed". According to dictionary.cambridge.org, the term "suppose" when defined means to think that something is likely to be true. Not only that, when you look at the synonyms for the term "suppose", you'll notice that one of the synonyms is "believe". Even when you look up the term "supposed" in the Greek you'll notice the strong's definition and in the biblical usage section, "supposed" is defined and used as follows: to deem or regard, think, suppose. Now let's examine the word "being" in Luke 3:23. "Being", simply put, in this context means that Jesus is that particular thing. That particular thing is Him being the Son of Joseph. Take a look how the Greek word for "being" is used in Matthew 1:19, Jn. 11:49; Acts 7:2 and Eph. 2:20. Look up the Greek word for "being" and examine each time it's being utilized. Now I'm quite sure you've heard some talk about there being a Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew? If this is true(which it seems to be), and considering the fact that Matthew 1:23 is a prophecy of a virgin conceiving, that would mean the term "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 would have to have the same Hebrew meaning as the the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. Why? Because in Isaiah 7:14 the term "virgin" there, from my understanding has absolutely nothing to do with virginity. Why do I say this? Because not only was Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy about Mary conceiving, it was also a prophecy about Isaiah’s wife. And we know that Isaiah’s wife wasn’t a woman that never had sex before. Isaiah already had a son by his wife prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving (Isaiah 7:3). But yet Isaiah’s wife, who is the virgin in Isaiah 7:14 and the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3 is still referred to as a virgin. Proving that that term virgin in Isaiah 7:14 isn’t a reference to virginity. In conclusion, let's say I am in error and Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ. I still believe that Jesus is the Christ and He came in the flesh and He died for ours sins and ascended back into the heavens and will one day return to judge the living and the dead. If I believe this to be true and repent of my sins, it's highly unlikely that I'll be cast into the lake of fire. Now I'm assuming (correct me if I'm in error) you're defining the term "virgin" in both Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who has never had sexual relations with a man before. I on the other hand am defining the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 as a young woman of marriageable age, a young woman or a maiden. Either way, the prophecy of a virgin conceiving was fulfilled. I guess the question still remains: Virgin in what sense? You know my answer. Note: According to Isaiah 7:14 the child would be for a sign. Read Isaiah 8:18 and see what it says in regard to signs.

The Virgin Birth pt.3 I believe that there is so much controversy surrounding the virgin birth because so many are misinterpreting what "of the Holy Ghost" actually means. First of all, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the the Spirit of the Most High God. The Most High God is Holy(Lev. 19:2; Rev. 4:8). The Most High God is a Spirit(Jn. 4:24). Again, the Holy Ghost(Spirit) is the Spirit of the Most High God. The term "of" in the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" is interchangeable with the term "from". So "of the Holy Ghost" can be read "from the Holy Ghost". Now that that's clarified, let's explain what the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" means. When you examine and read Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 46:10 you'll notice that these passages are revealing how the Most High declares that something will transpire before it occurs. This is what's meant by "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". When the Most High God declares that a particular event will happen in the future and it does, that event was from God or of God. That event was from the Holy Ghost(Spirit) or of the Holy Ghost(Spirit). John 1:13 is a great example of what "of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" means. Another example of "of the Holy Ghost" would be the birth of Isaac. Sarai was barren. So Sarai decided that she would give Hagar, her handmaiden to Abram to be his wife. Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived and bore a son who we know was Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael transpired because Sarai gave her handmaiden Hagar to her husband Abram. The Most High God wasn't involved with this act. This was the will of the flesh (John 1:13). Sarai came up with this idea on her own. This was an act of man (mankind) who is flesh (Galatians 4:23). However, in regards to the birth of Isaac, the Most High God was involved. The birth of Isaac was ordained by the Most High God Himself(Genesis 17:15-21). Issac was a child of promise(Galatians 4:23,28). The birth of Isaac was from the Most High God. The Most High God declared that Sarai would bear a child and the child's name would be Isaac. The birth of Isaac was of God. Isaac's birth was an act of God, who is a Spirit. Remember the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Most High God. So to be clear, what I'm saying is: The birth of Isaac was "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". In regards to Mary and the birth of Jesus the Christ, Mary's pregnancy was also ordained by the Most High God. Similar to Isaac, Jesus the Christ was a child of promise(Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:31-33) as well. The Most High God declared that a virgin(young woman) would bear a Son and that's exactly what happened. A virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was a pre-announced event that the Most High God Himself ordained and declared. In other words, a virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was "of the Holy Ghost". Hopefully this will help.

The Virgin Birth pt.2 The Jews never questioned Mary and Joseph about how Mary was impregnated but yet the virgin birth doctrine is considered to be an essential belief for biblical believers. It's odd that there was a divide amongst the people over "where" Jesus was born (Jn. 7:43) but not about "how" Jesus was born and yet many adamantly assert that the virgin birth doctrine is essential and true. It's clear that there was no need for the Jews of that day to question Mary and Joseph about how Mary conceived because they obviously knew. If the Jews of Mary's day would've interpreted the term "virgin" mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 as a reference to virginity, they would have interrogated Mary about how she was impregnated. The Jews did not bother interrogating Mary or Joseph about how Mary was impregnated because (in my opinion) they did not interpret the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who had never engaged in sexual relations with a man before. I believe they understood the term “virgin “to mean a young woman. I believe that the Jews understood the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to mean, a young woman who had never had sex with a man before will eventually have sex with a man and as a result of that sexual act, she will bear a son. Again, "where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but "how" Jesus the Christ was born wasn't. I don’t believe that the people and/or Jews were not under the impression that the Messiah's birth would be miraculous (in the sense of being born without a earthly biological father). Simply put, the people and/or the Jews did not think that the Messiah would come through the womb of a female who had never slept with a man before. If this is not the case, why wasn't Mary or Joseph ever questioned about how Mary got pregnant? The Sadducees themselves say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Taking this verse into consideration, we know that the Sadducees would not have believed that Mary got impregnated without sexual intercourse. "How" Mary conceived would have been a point of contention for the Sadducees but it wasn't. "Where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but not "how" He was born.

The Virgin Birth pt.1 To all biblical believers that subscribe to the orthodox virgin birth doctrine, I respectfully would like to say that I'm in disagreement with your position on the virgin birth. Let's me explain why. In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, and based off the Greek definition for “came together” which would be cohabit conjugally or of conjugal cohabitation, I interpret the phrase “before they came together” to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Hence the phrase “took unto him”. Examine Genesis 24:67 to see how the term “took” is used. So again, before Joseph and Mary were officially married (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof. Before Joseph left his father and mother (Genesis 2:24), Mary was impregnated by Joseph. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED WIFE being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph were officially married. Again, Joseph and Mary were not officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "ESPOUSED wife". "ESPOUSED wife" meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they were not officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication, read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Jesus the Christ did not come through a lineage of sinless beings. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you reread those verses keep Joseph and Mary in mind. Here's the dilemma: Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents (read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). Joseph began thinking irrationally. This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in whatever sense of the phrase. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he was not willing to make Mary a public example. Meaning Joseph could have had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could have easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could have said that he did not have sex with Mary and she would have been stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. But Joseph was a just man. So Joseph was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. This is the reason why Matthew decided to highlight that Joseph was a just man. Because a wicked man would have placed all the blame on Mary. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Wouldn’t that would mean that Mary's hymen would have still been intact? I would think so. If that's the case they could have easily covered up her pregnancy or covered up their premarital sexual affair simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would have had sex, Mary would have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity) because her hymen would have broken and everyone would have assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Moving on. The text states that Jesus the Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren (Hebrews 2:16-17). Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being (existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained His fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father. But the flesh comes from the seed (sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he knew her not til she brought forth her firstborn son....",. In my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph did not have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. I’m well aware that the phrase “knew her not” in that passage is a clear reference to Joseph not engaging in sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. Here lies the problem. Some are struggling with what the author is actually trying to communicate because based off how that passage is worded, they have concluded that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus but rather only after. In my opinion, their coming to this false conclusion because the text doesn’t read knew her not “again”. Since the term “again” isn’t included in that particular passage, they’re assuming that Mary and Joseph did not have sex prior to the birth of Jesus. Let me prove that the text does not have to read “and knew not again” in order to support my argument. In 1 Samuel 1 :5 the LORD shut up Hannah, the wife of Elkanah’s womb. 1 Samuel 1:2 says that Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah had children but Hannah did not. What does this prove? It proves that Elkanah was having sex with both of his wives. One was able to have children (Peninnah) and the other one was not (Hannah). 1 Samuel 1:19 reads, “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah KNEW Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her”. The text says that Elkanah “knew” Hannah his wife. The text does not say that Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”. One would then assume, like in the case of Matt. 1:25 that this was the first time Elkanah had sex with his wife because the term “again” is excluded. But we’ve already determined that Elkanah and Hannah were having sexual relations in 1 Samuel 1:2. So why doesn’t the text say Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”? It’s doesn’t have to based off the context and the surrounding information that has been disclosed. So when we reexamine Matt. 1:25 one can’t assume that Joseph did not have sex with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus based off the exclusion of the term “again” or how that particular passage is worded. Question: If Joseph did not have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother was performed? Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8. Or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the biblical text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the lineage of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father not stepfather. Read Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should have automatically understood that Jesus was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business...",. But they did not have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there was not referring to a woman who had never had sex before. Why do I say this? Because Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. The immediate fulfillment was referring to Isaiah’s wife. Isaiah’s wife was the virgin being referred to in Is. 7:14 and the prophetess in Is. 8:3. Prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving we know that Isaiah already had a son with his wife. Proving that the term virgin in that context is not a reference to virginity. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who had never had sex before? I’ll conclude with a question. Can you produce one single passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah’s birth being or would be one that was uncommon to man or miraculous? Update: As of March 12, 2022, my position on what the phrase "put her away” is currently uncertain. There is a possibility that the phrase "put her away" can in fact be a reference to divorce.

Garbage nonsense this video. Only a child of 10 seconds old can believe a word. Or the non-educated.

My Jewish brothers, I am here to tell you that our friend in stage doesn’t understand the right reading. There are two comings of the messiah. Once He came to anoint for our sins. The second one is to bring his everlasting Kingdom. Now, our friend on stage doesn’t like to give historical dates. But I will. Here are the two decrees: 1. Ezra 457 BC then Messiah appear in 27-33AD. But then in the middle of the week, cut off. Then the temple will be destroyed. Yeshua (Jesus) The Messiah, appeared in 27bc and gave up His life in 31AD. Now did you know there is another decree? Outside the temple of Jerusalem on the Moat, there is another writing 1537 A.D. this should take you to around this dates, this is when Yeshua returns. My Jewish brother and sisters. Please know that God loves you and that in Him, He pay for all of your short comings. Here is a great article about interpreting the prophecy in Hebrew word by word. If you are going to reject Jesus, at least give yourself the opportunity to listen both sides, that’s what a reasonable person would do, don’t you agree? ua-cam.com/video/9lReKnIKF4E/v-deo.htmlsi=2t6zenGC5wZjDgBe

But certainly jessu never called everlasting father.right.

Plz quote any old testament verse that say messiah said he is god himself because for me it is fundamental doctrine in christianity. Otherwise i donot accpet christianity.

Shabbat was given for all generations. It is a gift, not a burden.

‼️‼️Good News to Anyone and Everyone‼️‼️ The gospel, the good news is salvation from hell. And here’s how to get it, the Bible makes it as clear as can be. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, acts 16:31. Words from your mouth don’t even need to be accompanied, just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” from hell, it’s this easy!! If you don’t believe it’s this easy, read Matthew 11;30 KJV

‼️‼️The Best News‼️‼️ The gospel, the good news is salvation from hell. And here’s how to get it, the Bible makes it as clear as can be. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, acts 16:31. Words from your mouth don’t even need to be accompanied, just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” from hell, it’s this easy!! If you don’t believe it’s this easy, read Matthew 11;30 KJV

‼️‼️Amazing News‼️‼️ The gospel, the good news is salvation from hell. And here’s how to get it, the Bible makes it as clear as can be. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, acts 16:31. Words from your mouth don’t even need to be accompanied, just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” from hell, it’s this easy!! If you don’t believe it’s this easy, read Matthew 11;30 KJV

‼️‼️Great News‼️‼️ The gospel, the good news is salvation from hell. And here’s how to get it, the Bible makes it as clear as can be. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, acts 16:31. Words from your mouth don’t even need to be accompanied, just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” from hell, it’s this easy!! If you don’t believe it’s this easy, read Matthew 11;30 KJV

‼️‼️Good News‼️‼️ The gospel, the good news is salvation from hell. And here’s how to get it, the Bible makes it as clear as can be. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, acts 16:31. Words from your mouth don’t even need to be accompanied, just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” from hell, it’s this easy!! If you don’t believe it’s this easy, read Matthew 11;30 KJV

Christians that I know cherish Jewish people

Its also important to note that whenever ET is used, the very next word is the object that receives the action. So in Zechariah 12:10, it's the ASHER (WHOM) that receives the stabbing, therefore, it cannot mean because or concerning but has to relate to the WHOM - If ET referred to the they, ET would have been before the word they. If anyone is unsure of what the direct object should mean, use the verb and try all the words with it - for example; We know the Action/verb is THEY PIERCED - DEQARU - So if you were to say, They pierced WHOM , that would make sense. but it does not make sense if you say, They pierced because or They pierced concerning Whom is the object that receives the piercing - whom also refers to the ME which is God. Rabbis struggle with this so they avoid the scripture and read their mistranslations from Rashi commentary LOL

☦️You guys are listening to a Protestant Modalist heretic, who doesn't even give you the calculations & says mostly what we already known. In my future channel I will teach you how the Christian calculation fits perfectly & how it works.

Matthew 10:40 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. John 1:1-10 KJV 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Revelation 1:8 KJV 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Even if this argument was sound at the end of the day, It's kinda funny of the cruel irony Jews would play in trying to string the argument that "Isaiah 53 can't be about Jesus because the individual character is referred to in the plural form" completely negating that Yahweh refers to Himself or is shown to be in the plural form all throughout the Old Testament, while still only being one God : {Genesis 1:26} : "Then God said, 'Let *Us* make man in *Our* image, according to *Our* likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth'." {Genesis 3:22} "Then the LORD (יהוה) God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of *Us*, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'-" {Genesis 19:24} "Then the LORD (יהוה) upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD (יהוה) out of heaven;" {Isaiah 6:8} "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: 'Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?' Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me'.”

if it is dual prophecy who was born through virgin birth on the first fulfillment of the prophecy ?? If we say the word is not saying virgin it means young so Matthew is not right , or we christians are deceived

It’s okay to admit that he quoted something wrong, like he does in many places in his writing.

What is the context for Psalms 40:6?