 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
The Virgin Birth is among those concepts that are crucial to an adequate understanding of Christianity, one of the stones in the ideological foundation. Yet, like other stones, it is permeated with problems and contradictions that need to be exposed.
Most of the difficulties associated with the Virgin Birth arise from within the Bible itself. To begin with, several statements contend Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth and that Joseph did not have contact with her until afterwards (Luke 1:34-35, Matt. 1:24-25, 1:18, 20), while other verses say Jesus was Joseph's son (John 1:45, 6:42, Luke 2:27, 41, 4:22, Luke 2:33,43 in NASB, Matt. 13:55, Luke 3:23). Even Mary said Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 2:48) and she ought to know. Several others verses show Jesus had a natural birth according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3, 9:5). It's hard to believe the birth was natural if one of the parents was an Un-natural Holy Spirit.
A second major problem connected with the Virgin Birth arises from some of the previously-mentioned verses which allege Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. According to the genealogies in the first chapter of Matthew (1-16) and the third chapter of Luke (23-31) Joseph was a descendant of David. Therefore, Jesus was a descendant of David, which is required of one claiming the Messiahship (Jer. 23:5, 2 Sam. 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11). But Joseph couldn't be the father of Jesus and Jesus couldn't be of David's seed (2 Tim. 2:8, Acts 13:22-23, Rev. 22:16) "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3, 9:5) if he emerged from a virgin birth.
Christians must abandon one of two concepts, either the Virgin Birth or Messiahship of Jesus. They are incompatible. How could he be of David's descent "according to the flesh" if Joseph was not his physical father. A virgin birth would destroy the physical chain, the link between David and any possibility of being the Messiah of Davidic lineage.
Apologists attempt to resolve this dilemma by alleging one of the genealogies (Luke 3) pertains to Mary not Joseph. It allegedly shows he is a physical descendant of David and since Jesus was from her flesh he is also a physical descendant of David and can claim the Messiahship. However, there are several problems with this explanation. Although Joseph was from the house of David (Luke 1:27, 2:4), Mary appears NOT to have been from the house of Judah since her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron, i.e. from the house of Levi (Luke 1:5). Moreover, Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3 and only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph not Mary. In fact, none of the genealogies in either the Old or New Testament trace the lineage of a woman. Women are never given a position of such importance in the Bible as to merit a genealogy and there is no evidence Luke 3 provides an exception. The superiority granted men in the Bible would forestall any possibility of women being considered as equals.
A third problem arising from the birth of Jesus lies in the fact that the Bible repeatedly says nothing pure can come from woman (Job 25:4, 14:4, Job 15:14 NIV) and anyone touching a woman within seven days after she has menstruated (Lev. 15:19) is impure. Mary had to be purified (Luke 2:22-24) according to the Old Testament law (Lev. 12:8) and it's difficult to see how Jesus could have avoided touching her during these periods. Mary was under the curse of sin like all of us and thus, was no purer than anyone else. Realizing the problem an impure Mary presents, Catholics tried to resolve this difficulty by proclaiming the Immaculate Conception in 1854. They alleged that Mary herself was conceived apart from sin: she was pure. But that does not resolve the problem; it's only removed one step.
Answer for yourself: If this were true how could Mary's sinful parents produce a pure daughter?
Answer for yourself: Moreover, if Mary were sinless, like Jesus, then why would she say in Luke 1:47: "And my spirit hath rejoiced in G-d my Saviour"?
Answer for yourself: If Mary had been sinless, holy, and the mother of G-d, why did she need a Saviour? According to Christianity only sinners need saviours.
A fourth problem with the Virgin Birth arises from the wording of Isaiah 7:14 which supposedly prophesies the virgin birth of Jesus. According to the King James Version (KJV) the verses says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin" which came from the Hebrew word "almah." Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not virgin.
Answer for yourself: Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians, and the Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin?
Some scholars further allege that "shall conceive" should have been translated as "is with" child which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time.
Other critics of Christianity's claim note that "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means “has Conceived." They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English.
Additional evidence that Isaiah 7:14 does not pertain to Jesus lies in the fact that Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament., is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and according to Luke 1:31 was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.
A fifth problem associated with the Virgin Birth is that some Christians allege Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. But this couldn't have occurred unless all of Jesus' brothers and sisters were products of virgin births also. Many verses show Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matt. 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, Gal. 1:15, Luke 8:19, John 2:12, 7:3-5, 7:10, Acts 1:14), that Jesus was only the first of several offspring (Luke 2:7), and that Joseph had no contact with Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn (Matt. 1:25).
Besides these major problems, there are also several more difficulties related to the Virgin Birth.
If Joseph was the natural father of Jesus as some previously-mentioned verses allege then Jesus was illegitimate, a bastard, since Joseph and Mary were engaged, not married. Luke 2:5 proves the latter quite clearly in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Standard Version (NAS), and the New International (NI) Version.
Moreover, some say that Jesus couldn't claim the throne of David. To quote the fundamentalists: "...if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a Descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. Some say that if Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, He could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line." This problem, concerning this one criticism, is answered in fact that 3 curses were put on Jeconiah…no posterity was to sit upon the throne, he was to remain childless, and poor. But history recounts his repentance in captivity and that he amassed great wealth and children while there. It seems that 2 of the 3 punishments were removed since his sincere repentance.
Answer for yourself: Does it not stand to right that the third was removed by G-d as well…that his descendants could again sit upon the throne of David?
Well out of all these criticisms of the Virgin-Birth position of Christian theology I can honestly say that I have only one response to the "positive," and that is the one dealing with the Jeconiah curse. Otherwise, as stated above and in the other articles in this series the evidence stands overwhelmingly opposed to any credible belief in the Virgin-Birth.
Bennoah1@verizon.net