The churches of christendom are united in the claim that the New Testament says Jesus was born of a virgin. Their claim is usually accepted at face value. But does the New Testament say what the churches claim?
The articles listed below show that in fact the New Testament speaks only of a normal conception and birth. The first five articles analyse what the Bible says about the birth of Jesus in contrast to the claims made by the churches. The sixth article dispels the misconceptions that have been deliberately fostered about the expression Jesus Christ.
It may surprise many that the evidence against the virgin birth is so overwhelming, and that church scholars have long been in posession of this evidence. The scholars have spent almost two millenniums trying to circumnavigate their way around this evidence.
Although specific acknowledgments do not appear in the articles, these articles draw freely from the ideas and words in the works of Ted Wixted.
When Joseph became aware that Mary was pregnant by another man, he resolved to end his betrothal to her. He changed his intended course of action after receiving instructions from the angel. Contrary to common belief, the angel did not say that no man was involved in the conception.
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives that of Jesus. The two gospel writers knew that Joseph could not father the messiah. Their accounts said nothing about a virgin birth. Just as well, because Mary was a Levite, and Jesus was a Judahite. Luke names Jesus’ biological father, who was of the tribe of Judah.
The churches claim the first chapter of Luke describes the virginal conception of Jesus. This interpretation originated from those with a Greek-Latin mindset into whose hands custody of the New Testament fell. The same or similar words applied to Jesus are applied to others in the Bible. Theologians never suggest that these words describe a virginal conception, except in the case of Jesus.
The foundation stone of the virgin birth doctrine is the claim that Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth and Matthew recorded its fulfilment in the birth of Jesus. The theologians know that Isaiah’s prophecy had two fulfilments, the first occurring over 700 years before Jesus was born. They maintain that Isaiah’s words refer to a virginal conception when they apply to Jesus, but deny the same words have this meaning when they apply to the earlier fulfilment. The twists and turns, and U-turns, of the theologians as they attempt to circumnavigate the facts reveal more about the theologians than anything else.
The expression Jesus Christ is not a name at all, but an amalgam of a name (Jesus) and a title (christ). There are other men in the Bible with the same name as Jesus, and other christs. Translators have concealed this from ordinary churchgoers with selective treatment of these words according to whether they apply to Jesus of Nazareth or someone else.