The list of prophecies Mathew and Luke had for Yeshua – A.K.A. Jesus– to fulfill was long. The most controversial of them all is the virginal conception of Yeshua’s – A.K.A. Jesus. That was a prophecy written by Isaiah. I will cite the original version for you:


7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

       I said “original version” because Mathew had to make a subtle change to it to make Yeshua – A.K.A. Jesus– fulfill it. Here is Mathew’s version of the same prophecy:


1:23 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.

       Not because it is subtle, the change is less ill-intentioned. This change in Isaiah’s prophecy is a very convincing proof that Mathew was manipulating the prophecies to make them fulfill.


       In Isaiah’s version, the virgin herself would name her child Immanuel; in Mathew’s version, the people would call him Emmanuel. Yes. For this prophecy to be fully fulfilled, the messiah, besides being born from a virgin, had to be named by his mother, Immanuel. Joseph and Mary named him Yeshua, a common Hebrew name of the time, or Jesus in Greek, so Mathew had to change the fact that it was the virgin who should have called his name Immanuel, to “the people shall call him Emmanuel”. By doing that, Mathew made this prophecy be fulfilled because, now, even though the messiah was named Yeshua, the “people” called him Emmanuel.


       The part of the prophecy that said that the messiah had to be named Immanuel, represented Mathew and Luke’s major challenge. They could change Yeshua’s – A.K.A. Jesus– pedigree by inventing a genealogy; they could even make him be born in Bethlehem when he had been born somewhere else, but what they could not change was his name. They could not change it to Immanuel because, by then, everybody knew his name was Yeshua, so they had to invent a story to explain why their messiah was named Yeshua and not Immanuel, as the prophecy says.

       Both Mathew and Luke had to recur to an old Levite trick, angels. Yes. Even though all christians believe angels really exist, they do not. They are a creation of the cultures in the region, and the Levites made good use of them.

Contrary to the common belief, the angels in the bible did not appear when the Israelites needed them to help them solve a current problem of them; the Levites made them appear to solve a problem THEY had later when they were writing about those same events their Israelite brothers could not solve.

       I will illustrate this point by citing an interesting passage in the bible:

2 Chronicles

32:1 After these things, and the establishment thereof, Sennacherib king of Assyria came, and entered into Judah, and encamped against the fenced cities, and thought to win them for himself.

32:2 And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem,


32:3 He took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him.

32:5 Also he strengthened himself, and built up all the wall that was broken, and raised it up to the towers, and another wall without, and repaired Millo in the city of David, and made darts and shields in abundance.

32:6 And he set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spake comfortably to them, saying,


32:7 Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him:

32:8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

32:17 He wrote also letters to rail on the LORD God of Israel, and to speak against him, saying, As the gods of the nations of other lands have not delivered their people out of mine hand, so shall not the God of Hezekiah deliver his people out of mine hand.

32:18 Then they cried with a loud voice in the Jews' speech unto the people of Jerusalem that were on the wall, to affright them, and to trouble them; that they might take the city.

32:19 And they spake against the God of Jerusalem, as against the gods of the people of the earth, which were the work of the hands of man.

32:20 And for this cause Hezekiah the king, and the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz, prayed and cried to heaven.

32:21 And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.

       As you can see, these are not the words of Isaiah; these are the words of other Levite writing about these events after they had occurred. And here is that Levite’s problem: Hezekiah was the messiah of that time. He was the deliverer Micah had prophesied about when he wrote. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.(Micah, 5:2) He had just re-established the reign of Jealous –A.K.A. Yahweh or Jehovah– in Judah because his father, the previous king, had abandoned him and worshipped other gods. So, that Levite writing about these events could not say that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, had defeated the new deliverer when god was on his side. He had to make an angel appear to kill:

2 Kings

19:35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

       According to this scribe, that angel killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one single night! If the god of the Levites had that kind of super soldiers at his disposal, why did he not send seven of them to kill all the Egyptian army instead of sending just plagues and killing firstborns? Why did he not send them, instead of the children of Israel, to conquer the “promised land”?


       The truth is Sennacherib was content with the heavy tribute Hezekiah paid him and left.

       Here is his account of the siege of Judah written on the Sennacherib Prism located in the Museum of Chicago:

       As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by leveling with battering-rams and by bringing up siege-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 24200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers.

Luckenbill, Daniel David. The Annals of Sennacherib. Oriental Institute Publications 2. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1924.

            The Levite acknowledges Hezekiah paid the tribute:

2 Kings

18:14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

18:15 And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.

18:16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.

       How could the scribe just write that his messiah and his “powerful” god had just been defeated by Sennacherib? He had to do something to save their god’s face, so he invented the angel to solve his problem.

       Angels are the resource the scribes had to explain the unexplainable.


       That same subterfuge was used by Mathew and Luke to explain why their christ was named Yeshua and not Immanuel.

       According to Mathew, the angel appeared to Joseph:


1:20 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 is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

1:23 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.

       For Mathew, it was better to make the angel appear to Joseph because the Jewish society was a patriarchal one, and it was the father who chose the name of his children.


       Luke, on the other hand, did not think of that. He made the angel appear to Mary because, according to Isaiah’s prophecy, the virgin had to name the child:


1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

       Whom did the angel appear to? Did he appear to Joseph, to Mary or both? All christians would answer, “To both.” But the angel did not appear to neither of them. I will tell you how I know.

       According to the Hebrew tradition, everything their god touched became sacred: Mount Sinai was sacred, and so were the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle and the altar in the temple. In the same way, at the very moment the holy ghost came upon Mary, she became sacred. And if Joseph had known the holy ghost had impregnated Mary, he would have never dared to have sexual relations with her. If you are wondering how I know they had sexual intercourse, the answer is very simple: they had more children after Yeshua– A.K.A. Jesus!

       Furthermore, Mathew states that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary:


1.25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

       We all know that “to know” in the bible means having sexual intercourse. Mathew states clearly that Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until Yeshua– A.K.A. Jesus– was born; meaning they copulated after his birth. Otherwise he would have written, “He never knew her.”

       Mathew, due to the lack of knowledge of the Hebrew tradition, did not know the implications of being impregnated by the Hebrew god. That is why he wrote that after bringing forth Yeshua– A.K.A. Jesus, Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage. Neither did he know that the catholic church was going to decide that Mary would be a “virgin” even after the birth of her firstborn son.

       On the other hand, if Mary had known she had been impregnated by her god, she would have never let an ordinary mortal touch her. If they continued having children, it was because neither of them knew their oldest son would “become” the christ, and that Mary had to remain a “virgin” forever.


       Scholars have learned that Isaiah did not write that the messiah was to be born of a virgin, but of a young maiden. The translation of the word almah in the prophecy of Isaiah from Hebrew to Greek was changed. Instead of translating young maiden which is the meaning in Hebrew, they translated virgin.

Apologists imply that it might have been an honest mistake. I do not think it was an honest mistake. Like the Levites writing the old testament, who were not content with the victories of their brethren, and added fantastic deeds, attributed to their god, such as the walls of Jericho crumbling down to the sound of horns, or the rain of rocks to smash the enemies; the Greek translators of the Hebrew traditions decided to enhance the participation of their new god in the conception of the alleged christ. A young maiden having a baby was not good enough, so they decided to insert the custom of the Greek gods of interfering in human affairs. To make the prophecy more striking, the Hebrew god, Jealous ?A.K.A Yahweh or Jehovah, had to do what Zeus used to do, having sexual intercourse with human women. So they decided that it had to be the god of the Hebrews the one who was going to impregnate Mary, being a virgin. That way the conception of the christ would be really “miraculous”. But as always, they did not think of the consequences of changing the word.

By translating the word almah as virgin, they made the prophecy very difficult to fulfill. When almah meant young maiden, it was easy to fulfill because it only required any male descendant of King David to impregnate a young maiden to give birth to the christ. But now that almah meant virgin, and the girl had to remain immaculate for the rest of her life, all male descendants of the second king of the Jews were ruled out to beget the messiah. The moment any of them fertilized a maiden, she would lose her virginity, disqualifying her to be the mother of the christ.


       For the prophecy to be fulfilled now, a female descendant of King David was required. Since the virgin was going to be impregnated by Jealous ?A.K.A. Yahweh or Jehovah, the blood of David would not be flowing through the child’s veins, since the Hebrew god was not related to him. (We do not even know if he has got any blood). So, the only way for the blood of David to flow through the messiah’s veins was that the virgin, in this case Mary, was a direct descendant of David. Neither Luke nor Mathew realized the necessity of Mary being related to David, that was why they did not invent a genealogy for Mary.


       I am aware that apologists argue that the brothers of Yeshua’s were actually half brothers. According to those scholars, they were only Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. They even portrait Joseph as an old man to emphasize their hypothesis.  But that is not true.

       According to the Law of Moses, the firstborn of a man should be presented to their lord:


13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

Called Numbers

18:15 Everything that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.

       Who did Joseph present to his lord in the temple? He presented Yeshua –A.K.A. Jesus, meaning he was his firstborn.



2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

       That fact corroborates that Yeshua’s brothers were not from any previous marriages of Joseph’s, but from his marriage with Mary.

       If those children mentioned in the gospels were from a previous marriage of Joseph’s, he would have taken the oldest one to the temple to be presented to his lord, and he would have NEVER taken Yeshua ?A.K.A. Jesus? because a Hebrew man had to present ONLY his firstborn. The first child begotten with the second wife might have been HER firstborn, but it would have NEVER been considered HIS firstborn.  Thus, the fact that Yeshua ?A.K.A. Jesus? had been presented to Joseph’s lord means he must have been his firstborn, ruling out any of his brothers to be older than he was.


       Other apologists argue that Yeshua’s siblings were, in fact, adopted. I would concede that a poor person could adopt one child to keep his/her own offspring company, but eight? It simply does not make sense. I know that they will say that Joseph, being from the royal house of David could not be poor, but he was (let’s also remember that the genealogy, relating him to David was invented). I will not say that he was poor because he was a carpenter, since carpenters can be rich. Instead, I will let Luke remind you what Joseph offered as a holocaust at the time he presented Yeshua at the temple:


2: 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

       You might be saying, “That proves nothing. Joseph was just following god’s law.” But that was not his alleged mandate. His orders were to sacrifice a lamb of one year of age and a young pigeon or a turtledove.

       Here is the passage:


12:6: And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

       A Hebrew could only offer two turtledoves or two pigeons in the following circumstance:


12:8: And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

       Joseph and Mary offered the turtledoves because they could not afford a lamb, meaning they were poor, for they would not have dared trying to deceive their lord.


       Their poverty makes the adoption theory unlikely.


       I also know that the catholic church does not accept the fact that Mary had more children after Yeshua– A.K.A. Jesus–. They want to pretend she remained a virgin.


       They went to the extreme of changing brothers for cousins in some of their biblical editions, to hide the fact that Mary had more children after Yeshua– A.K.A. Jesus. But by doing that, they were going against the mandate in their own bible.


       Read what is written in:


22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

       Needless to say that they do not care if they transgress their own prohibitions, they know nothing happens. They wrote those threats to fool the naïve ones.

       Read what Luke had to say about Mary’s children:



2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

       And Mathew wrote the same:


1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


       If there was a firstborn, there had to be a second-born, a third-born, etc. When the “apostles” refer to the “only son of god”, they write:


3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

       If Mary had had only one son, Luke and Mathew would have written, “And she brought forth her only conceived son.” Instead they wrote, her firstborn son, meaning she had more, maybe eight more.


       Why eight? You might be asking. Let us read the verses where the siblings of Yeshua’s – A.K.A. Jesus– are mentioned:


13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

       Yeshua –A.K.A. Jesus– had four brothers: James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and then Mathew writes, are all his sisters not among us? One sister? Impossible. Two? Not likely. Three? Maybe, but “all his sisters” sounds like four or more to me.

       If Joseph and Mary had that many children, it was because neither of them was aware that “she had conceived being a virgin” and did not know that she had been chosen to be the “wife” of the Hebrew god and remain forever virgin.


       Furthermore, if an angel had told both of them or even either of them that Yeshua –A.K.A. Jesus– was to be the christ, they would have believed in him. And they would have told the rest of their children, “No matter how strange the words of your oldest brother may sound, trust him, for he is the lord incarnated.” But neither Mary nor Yeshua’s brothers believed in him! I will tell you how I know:


12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.


8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.

8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.

8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

       All three accounts are saying that Mary and his children did not do the will of their god, (if Yeshua –A.K.A. Jesus– was god, they did not do Yeshua’s –A.K.A. Jesus– will.) But Luke, as always, goes a little further. He says that Mary and her children neither heard the word of the Israelite god nor did it.


       If an angel had appeared to Mary, she would have listened to every word Yeshua –A.K.A. Jesus– spoke, and done everything he said.


       But wait! There is more. Mary never told his children to believe in Yeshua–A.K.A. Jesus. They even mock him due to his ideas.

Read what John had to say on this respect:


7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

7:4 For there is no man that doeth anything in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

       If you had been Mary, and you had been told by the archangel that your firstborn was to be the christ, would you not have told the rest of your children to believe in him? If I had been Mary, I would have gone a step further. I would have told them to help him in any way possible to achieve his mission, and I would have preached to help him convince the rest of the Jews that he was the real messiah. But Mary did not do anything to help her son. The “angel” did not tell her to keep it a secret. Why did she not tell even her own children? She did not tell them because she did not know.


       Never before the “angels” had been so busy. One appeared to Joseph three times. Or were they three different angels? Another angel appeared to Zachariah, another appeared to the shepherds, and an archangel appeared to Mary. Did those many angels appeared because Yeshua was very important to their god, or because Mathew and Luke had so many things they could not explain, and they made those “angels” appear to solve their problems? I incline for the latter. Had the Hebrew god had those angels at his disposal, the Romans would not have been able to destroy the “promised land”.


       These were the problems that only “angels” could solve:

Problem 1 (Mathew)

       The real messiah should have been named Immanuel by his mother. Mathew’s messiah was named Yeshua. The only way to explain that was to make god give a counter order regarding the name of the messiah. By making the alleged angel appear and by making him tell Joseph to name the child Yeshua, that problem was solved.

       It solved the problem for Mathew, but it created a conflict for his god. If he had told Isaiah that the messiah had to be named Immanuel, and then he changes his mind, does that mean the Hebrew god made a mistake?  Is this god not infallible? Why did he fail this time?

Problem 2 (Mathew)

       How would Joseph know Herod had sent his soldiers to kill his son? The telegraph and the telephone had not been invented yet. Well, maybe those two media of communication had not, but angels had. So Mathew made good use of them. He sent one to warn Joseph, and Mathew became the savior of the messiah! Does that make Mathew a messiah of messiahs?

Problem 3 (Mathew)

       Once Joseph and his family were in Egypt, there was no way he could have learned that Herod had died, so Mathew made the “angel” appear to tell Joseph it was time to return to Israel. Otherwise the “holy family” would have stayed in Egypt forever, and Mathew’s messiah would have not become everybody’s messiah.

Problem 1 (Luke)

       Luke had to prepare the setting for John the Baptist, so he needed an “angel” to announce his birth.

Problem 2 (Luke)

       Basically, Luke had the same problem that Mathew had with the name of the Messiah. But for him, a regular “angel” was not enough to make such an important announcement. Luke decided to hire an archangel for the job, Gabriel, the most famous of them all. He did not have to change the prophecy to “the people shall call him Emmanuel”, because he was making his god tell the virgin, through Gabriel, to name the child Yeshua.

Problem 3 (Luke)

       How would people have known of the birth of the messiah if not for the angel? Before this event, angels only appeared to those destined to have a crucial role in the fate of Israel, like the announcement of Samson to his parents, but all of a sudden; angels are appearing to simple shepherds, just to go see a baby. I know that, according to Luke, it was not any baby, but still they had no other important job.

       The Levites used angels to solve these kinds of problems that appeared from time to time when they were writing some accounts that did not favor them and their god. And Mathew and Luke made good use of them.

       Mary lost her virginity when she conceived her first son, and kept having babies because she did not know she was to be chosen to give birth to the “son of god”. Her role in the gospels would have been more decisive had she known.

<< Previous  Next >>


Site developed by Sergio Arroyos