Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ?

Most Christians believe and most Christian denominations teach – “Can a person reject the Virgin Birth and still be a Christian? The answer is no. The Virgin Birth was never meant to stand alone. It is not a random truth plucked from thin air. God never says, "Pick and choose what you want to believe." The story of Jesus is a seamless garment woven by the Holy Spirit. Take out his miraculous birth and you have ripped the whole garment to shreds. (I guess that means if Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin then Jesus Christ cannot have divinity and to me that limits the power of God the Father.}

Christianity is not just a collection of random truths, any one of which could be dropped with little harm. It is true, and truth is a whole. Consequently, a diminution at any point inevitably affects the rest, given enough time. When we begin to drop this doctrine or that doctrine, even though we cannot see at the time how it will affect the rest, it nevertheless does affect the rest.

History teaches us that when men begin to doubt the Virgin Birth, they do not stop there. One doubt leads to another until the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. In truth, the Virgin Birth is no more miraculous than the Resurrection. They stand or fall together. (I think God expects us to question, Thomas did!)

Do I understand it? No.

Do I believe it? Yes.

Why? Because the Bible teaches it and because it makes perfect sense. (Does it really make perfect sense if so then why do we Christians claim there are many things that we will not truly understand on earth?}

Can we still believe in the Virgin Birth? We can and we must.”

Joseph doubted Mary’s story about the birth of Christ. It is true that the Bible says he believed Mary after an angel appeared to him in a dream, but initially he doubted. Does doubt alone about the Virgin Birth make it impossible for you to be a Christian? I am sorry, but I do not think so!

Do I think it is enough to doubt the Virgin Birth because We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples. This may sound ridiculous, but many use this as an argument to not believe in the Virgin Birth.

The fact that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the Virgin Birth gives credence to some for not believing. We do rely on Paul rely for much of Christian theology, it is a bit strange he did not mention it. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You would think that would be important. Did Paul think that Jesus birth was natural and conventional?

Between 49 and 55 CE, Paul recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, he writes: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law." If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of importance. Paul would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.  Can you blame some Christians for having doubts about the Virgin Birth?

Again, In about 57 CE, Paul wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" seems to imply a natural, normal conception and birth.

Paul does not write anything about Jesus' family in any of his Epistles except for a single reference in Galatians 1 to James, the head of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. Paul called James "the Lord's brother" -- an individual with whom he had many disagreements.  I know conservative scholars claim Christians called everyone brother/sisters then.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? This certainly causes some to doubt the Virgin Birth.

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation! Again a cause for some to question the Virgin Birth.

Was the Virgin Birth story an honest mistake: Most liberal theologians and biblical historians believe that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for virgin? This is perhaps the most commonly accepted explanation among skeptics, secularists, and religious liberals.

It is true there were others that claim to be born of a virgin with divine fathers before Jesus. Jesus was not the first said to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.

Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE.  In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. Some Christian groups may have slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt to show that Jesus was a person of very great importance -- an individual at least as important as the founders of Rome.

These stories may cause those that know history and legends to doubt the Virgin Birth.

The report of a Virgin Birth didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened. Why? If ancient history is recorded by word of mouth and there was recorded history before the Virgin Birth appeared why did he take so long to record it?  How do you answer that to remove ones doubt about the Virgin Birth without adding your own personal opinion? There are no facts to stand on.

Would we believe a similar story if it happened in 2016?  Most of the people today would never, ever, believe it.

Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying or mentally ill?

Why then are some Christians so judgmental, bias and claim without any doubt that if you do not believe in the Virgin Birth you cannot be a Christian and you are destine for Hell?

Most liberal theologians do not believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth.  Skepticism about the virgin birth is not a recent development, as evidenced by a 1823 quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." the membership of mainline and liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church, USA, etc. tend to be significantly more conservative than their ministers and theologians. Belief in the virgin birth is much higher among the laity than the clergy in these denominations.  

The Virgin Birth may have been copied from another religion.  History records that various religions claimed virgin births: Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her. The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings. In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama. A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin. In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after his death. Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternative myth is that he emerged from a rock. Also in Persia, Zoroaster was born of a virgin. In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth. Is it really fair for Christians to judge non-believers of the Virgin Birth as lunatics.

Why was the Virgin Birth story delayed in being told.  Some say no respectable Jew would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of the Messiah." This may explain why the story of the virgin birth first appeared in the Gospel of Matthew. It was written circa 80 CE at a time when most Christians were converts from Paganism who had been taught about virgin births in their former religions.

The Virgin Birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear of the very unusual births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to the parent-to-be; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised; and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke could have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a Virgin Birth as proof that Jesus' birth was beyond simply unusual; it was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have been considered to be only equal in stature to those heroes.

Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain references to the Virgin Birth.  In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph" and in 6:42 the townspeople ask, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" If the author(s) of John believed in the miracle of the Virgin Birth, why would it not have been mentioned somewhere in the gospel of John, and why was Joseph allowed to stand as Jesus' father on two occasions and no attempt to clarify the statement was made.

Do I believe the Virgin Birth was possible – YES!  Do I believe you must believe it in order to be a Christian – NO!  Until I am shown in the Bible that you must believe in the Virgin Birth in order to have your sins forgiven, receive salvation or spend eternity with God I will continue to believe it is not necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth.