Is the virgin birth the truth and is it in Torah

After a few trips to Israel and some other eye opening expiriences my wife and I have had to throw everything out and start all over... I mean from the very first four words in Genesis "In the beginning Elohim (The Mighty One) ." We had to start right there and decide all over again if we believed that.

Now some 7 years later we are still going through all that we scrapped and rebuilding, finding correct doctrine and basing beliefs on Torah / Tanakh (Tanakh is what we normally call the old testament) The Torah / Tanakh is the first five books of the Tanakh) and we are coming up with some questions that are not being answering again...

What we now do is start by using Torah and Tanakh as the foundation... If we can't find a doctrine in Torah, we do not make it up using the New Testament (NT) like we used to do…So...

The virgin birth does not seem to be in the Torah / Tanakh... The church wants to use Isaiah but, what it says there clearly applies to Isaiah and his wife and they had the baby and it was not a virgin birth as we in America think "virgin" means and it was a sign for the king at the time as is stated in Isaiah...

Don't you think that the Messiah, his disciples, or someone would have at least mentioned the virgin birth?  It seems like that is a big part of the doctrine and nobody ever even mentions it except for what appears in Matthew, which I have learned that that section is not included in the version of Matthew that the Ebionites had.  And there is a section in Luke which from the manuscript in Greek sounds more like she was being told the spirit of YHWH was going to rest on her and the child would be influenced by Him from the womb... The virgin birth was never mentioned by the Messiah or his disciples ever... Never directly stated in Torah...Yes we can make it sound like it but it was not directly stated... If he is not vigin born then he would be a man like Moses said... "A prophet like me" not Elohim, but a prophet and a servant... Does it mean he could not have still done what he did?  I do not think it means that.  He could still have stood in for Israel and paid the price for the nation...atoned and given us a chance to be right before Yah... Can he make you right before Yah without repentance and obedience?  These things have always been required before and after Yahushua.  Rather, didn't his death atone for Israel and bring to a close not only the time of punishment but also the just punishment of death which was going to mean that Israel could not inherit the promised land forever as YHWH promised?  Wasn't Yahushua a stand-in for the nation so that the promise of YHWH could be accomplished...eternal life...inherit the land forever?... Doesn't his death atone for that time period of disobedience so that ALL of Israel can inherit as promised?  And doesn't his death atone for the time of the church after his death in which Israel has still been dispersed and both Israel and Gentiles have walked contrary to YHWH?  Doesn't his standing in for Israel bring Israel back to the place where

WE now currently can be considered clean (vs unclean) before Yah and we can be counted as righteous again through belief in what he did and obedience that results from that belief...It seems more that he bought back a right to inherit the promised land forever that was given up by Israel and that we who were called unclean by YHWH can now be called clean but we have to stand on our own right standings through obedience to YHWH AFTER we have benefited from Yahushua's atoning for us and once we have repented of walking contrary to YHWH... The way I see it he is to be honored even as is Moses and many others, though greater. He will have greater honor because of what he succeeded in doing for his people Israel...and it was not enough that it be for Israel but YHWH also gave him as a light to the gentiles, and he will be the man who rules this earth preparing the way for YHWH to dwell among His people and will be honored as such but not worshipped as YHWH... This is what it seems the Torah and Prophets are saying was the situation and why there would be the need for a messiah.

The virgin birth seems to be a pagan thing... You can see it in Greek mythology and other pagan religions but I do not see it in the Torah... If it is there. I want to see it...

If the Messiah is a man only and not half man half Elohim or fully man and fully Elohim then we are in

idolatry saying he is and worshipping him as Elohim... Right?

So can you show me in Torah /Tanakh where he is claimed to be virgin born, that he is Elohim or somehow a unique son of Elohim... What I mean by

unique is that Adam, Jacob and others were called the son of Elohim but that does not make them virgin born or something different than a 100% man...  I want to know where we get this stuff...

Now let me tell you where I really got hit in the face with this... It was at your seminar.  Two times I was listening to you tell how the rays of the sun came down and got the widow of Nimrod "the goddess" pregnant and then you look at the crowed real sheepish like and say "rrrright"... Both times I heard myself say, "that's what we believe."  What makes her story different than Marium's? Joseph was betrothed to Marium and that means he had full rights to her right then... It wasn't an American betrothal but a Jewish one in which a contract is entered into...He could do everything a man can do with a wife but she was not yet living with him in his house, which would take her from the status of "betrothal" to "wife" with ALL rights of marriage then awarded to them at that time...it was a contractual distinction regarding property and such… So then if Yah got her pregnant then did He sin?  This was someone's wife as we understand it...If Joseph did not have full rights to her physically as a wife, how would he have been able to travel with her on the road alone?... If betrothal doesn't mean the Jewish version of betrothal back then, there is no way according to the law they could have done what they did in traveling together, sleeping in the same place, etc.

 o people use the NT

to claim that Marium had been impregnated by Elohim while having been "betrothed" to a man... Yet nobody ever really is quoted as saying that happened...It just appears in a couple of messed up / tampered with pieces of text in the NT in which supposedly Matthew is recording this and supposedly Luke is quoting Gabriel...Interestingly, the section that references this in Matthew is nearly word for word the same as a section in Proto-Gospel of James that was rejected as legit.  And you've got to know that changes and additions were made often to the letters and gospels...There's nearly 300,000 discrepancies among the manuscripts.  My point is, it's never mentioned by anyone important... When John the baptizer sends a messenger asking the Messiah if he was the one?  Why didn't the Messiah say something like... Common John, you are my cousin, you know I was born of a virgin!  John would have known of it and likely not even had doubts in the first place if such was true or why didn't he say the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and remember my mother was a virgin when I was born… Since the other examples were taken from the Tanakh and given by Yahshua as proof of messiahship, why not include a virgin birth as proof?  That's a pretty big deal… So, it is not mentioned by anyone as any kind of proof of him being Messiah ever anywhere.  So why do we believe the story about Marium but not "the goddess" the wife of Nimrod, the queen of heaven, which the universal (catholic) church calls Mary?

Shouldn't the proof be substantial in order to abandon a foundational principle taught in Torah, that YHWH is ONE or to disregard such things in the Tanakh that point to the "eternalness" of YHWH or the immortality of YHWH which indicates He cannot die or the statements that He cannot be tempted by evil (though Yahushua was)? The Torah says that YHWH is one, the only Creator and Elohim and that the Jewish messiah will be/is a man, a prophet like Moshe.  Belief in a virgin birth leads to a belief that Yahushua is YHWH and if that's not true, then it's idolatry.

There needs to be some proof besides tradition and besides the clearly documented as meddled-with and not completely reliable NT.

If it was as successful as it was for Constantine to overthrow observance of the real Sabbath and for other "church" guys to substitute YHWH's feasts with pagan celebrations, why not also successfully include other pagan beliefs like a mother goddess queen of heaven figure?