Against denial of virgin birth of Lord Jesus Christ
- Oleg Grossu
- Feb 18, 2016
- 11 min read
By God's help and wisdom in His Son Jesus Christ, I will respond to another claim
from yahoo answers user Lighting the Way to Reality about fabrication of Christian beliefs about virgin birth of Lord Jesus Christ.
You are correct in saying that Isaiah 7:14 was NOT referring to Jesus-nor, for that matter, the messiah.
But the reference to that passage in Matthew is part of a bigger picture.
The fact is that the birth stories in both Matthew and Luke are fabrications by their authors in an attempt to make it appear
that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. That is apparent because the two stories contradict each other so much they cannot be reconciled.
Response: It was shown in the past response that the above Bible accounts were called fabrications by the user when depending on the belief that the information and dating of Josephus Flavius are absolutely correct (though they cannot be verified by other sources); anyway his testimony about Jesus is already considered forged; also this same Josephus is also known for pro-roman propaganda, being part of the imperial pagan party, who were persecuting Christian faith at that time.
As for Matthew's fabrication of the the prophecy of the virgin birth, here is a more complete examination of it.
The belief in the virgin birth was one of the myths that developed about Jesus after his death on the cross.
And it was a relatively late one at that, because it is not known in the earlier Christian documents.
Response: The user supplied no evidence that Jesus was not born from a virgin, pushing his personal beliefs as fact.
Let's check by logic:
IF the all-powerful God exists THEN He could bear Jesus from a virgin, proven by Jesus' miracles and testimony of his parents and shepherds. ELSE Jesus was conceived without penetration from human seed THEN Jesus was born from a virgin, but from human seed ELSE IF Jesus was conceived with penetration by man Jesus was not born from a virgin, conceived from Joseph or another man. Perhaps the user refers to Paul's letters as the earlier Christian documents. But Paul's letters do call Jesus as Son of God multiple times. Also what exactly is "relatively late"? For instance the claim that the universe is over 14 billions of years has appeared long after the universe beginning, does it mean it is a myth? It is an arbitrary criteria - putting personal opinion as if that is a valid historical or religious fact or scientific criteria, but it is not. Perhaps to him as an atheist materialist person believing that God does not exist and supernatural miracles are impossible, the virgin birth of Jesus is impossible,
but what is obvious is that science often was wrong and cannot test spiritual concepts
such as God, love, goodness, peace, forgiveness, etc.; this way it is another case of personal belief, with much less foundation than Christian faith. But the rise, colossal power and influence of Christian faith is in itself a miracle. If it was a lie, then those who made it were geniuses, to be able to affect billions for thousands of years, that even non-Christians do often find Jesus' teachings as good to follow. But if it is true and all-powerful and all-knowing creator God is behind it, it explains its goodness, wisdom and power easily. The belief in the late dating of the Gospels is relatively recent. According to ancient Christian writers Matthew was the first to write his Gospel, originally in Hebrew. Second, we know by the Bible that apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ did preach the Gospel orally first. Third, most ancient information is recorded years later. Usually only rulers/kings get contemporary mentions in stone, coins, statues, though even they can be forged and made later. But even then most significant people from 1st century are mentioned decades later, so this "later myth" pretense is a made up excuse used to deny, not learn. So far the claim that virgin birth of Jesus being a late myth depend on the following beliefs: - Jesus Christ was not born from virgin Mary and Holy Spirit - Jesus Christ was not resurrected - there was no oral preaching of the Gospel - the Gospels were recorded late and contain falsehood Since these things cannot be tested exactly, it is just another unproven belief of the user, with much less validity since there are no early extant documents describing that Jesus was born as human only and was no resurrected.
The earliest known group denying Jesus' virgin birth according to Christian writers were followers of Cerinthus and Ebion, claiming that Jesus was just a man, perhaps being referenced in the epistles of disciple John. Anyway by this person's criteria of "late" their opinions are much later than the Gospels, since John was considered as writing at the end of first century. While the direct mentions to such groups are by Irenaus of Lyons at the close of second century. By the "late" criteria these are the actual mythmakers instead, since the gospels of Matthew and Luke are first sources from 1st century and more reliable.
When Matthew wrote his gospel he tried to find something in the scriptures to support the idea of a virgin birth.
As a Greek speaker, he used the Septuagint translation of the scriptures, but that translation often did not convey the sense of the original Hebrew.
Furthermore, the idea of a virgin birth would have been foreign to the Hebrews of the Old Testament time (it was essentially a pagan concept),
and the only passage Matthew could come up with was Isaiah 7:14.
Response: Here's the testimony of ancient Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis about Matthew, "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." It is possible that Matthew did use Septuagint, but also some other Bible version. It also says that there was an earlier version of Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. However no evidence given here that the original translation did not convey the same sense. The idea that Isaiah does not talk about virgin is based on later hebrew translations, coming after the New Testament Gospels, since Jews were hostile to Christian faith and had all incentive to oppose it, by attributing lies to Jesus as being a sorceror and bastard, including by creating later edited versions opposed to Christian faith, since 2nd century, such as those of Aquila, Symachus, Theodotion, for which reason Christian writer Justin Martyr in 2nd century did mention that Jews mutilated their writings removing the prophecies about Jesus, while Origen in 3rd century did collect 6 versions of the Bible (Hexapla). Is that not suspicious why Jews would suddenly create so many Bible versions after appearance of Christian faith, instead of using the existing Bible, if the word used in Isaiah was different from virgin? Since Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed according to the law of Moses the Jews are convicted of having transgressed the laws of God and being punished by Him according to the curses described in Deuteronomy ch. 28.
So they cannot be used as sources of religous authority, when their own scriptures and destruction of Jerusalem, temple and exile from Israel testify of their sin against God. The idea of virgin birth and sons of God is not pagan, since it is referenced in the Bible multiple times long before pagan religions of greeks and romans. For instance the mention of seed of the woman in Genesis points to virgin birth, later God points to the son of Covenant by Isaac, destruction of firstborns of Egypt, also by law of Moses God consecrates the firstborn sons.
Both Genesis and book of Job refer to sons of God. It is considered that Moses wrote between 1500-1200 BC, while the pagan writings generally deal with seduction of married women or virgins by gods and conception by sex,
not spiritual sonship. Isaiah in chapter 7 is speaking about the sign of God: "10 Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” 13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. 17 The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” Immanuel means "God with us." What kind of a sign is a young woman giving birth? Does it not happen everyday? Would that really be a sign? Come on, have some reason, instead of blind denial. Now a virgin giving birth would be a real sign and would be a better reason for the title "God with us".
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16 was about an event that would take place in the near future from the time it was given,
not hundreds of years in the future. Furthermore, the woman spoken of was not referred to as a virgin (which is bethuwlah in the original Hebrew),
but rather a young woman (almah in the original Hebrew) and there was nothing unusual about the birth. As the prophecy said, by the time the child
who was to be born would be able to refuse evil and choose the good, the land would be forsaken of both of its kings-
again, an event that would take place in the near future.
Response: Isaiah is adressing God's response not just to Ahaz, but generally to the house of David, clearly referring to a prophecy regarding the whole line of king David. If he only was responding to Ahaz, would not he address him only? So by God's guidance i believe this refers to a double prophecy, that's why the general meaning almah (young woman) is used. For instance the information in Old Testament Bible are referring usually to Israel, however the laws and commands of God are beneficial for the whole world. It can be seen that the prophecies regarding destruction of Tyre, a local sea power near Israel, were reused for Mystery Babylon too, as a symbol of world sea power. In the smaller sense it refers to a direct sign to king Ahaz against the king of Syria Resin, but in the larger sense it refers to Jesus Christ as the prophesied descendant and Branch from king David, referred in consequent chapters of Isaiah 8-11. At the time of Jesus romans did conquer Syria and they also did destroy Jerusalem and Israel in 66-70 AD, by using Syrian legions.
But the point that needs to be emphasized is that Isaiah used the Hebrew word for virgin (bethuwlah) in several other places
in his book (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5), so why didn't he use it in 7:14 if the woman was supposed to be a virgin?
The answer is that the young woman was not supposed to be a virgin as is clear from the context.
Also, Jesus was not called Immanuel, as you pointed out, which is what Isaiah said the child would be called.
Response: That is so in the current Masoretic text, but which was completed in 10th century. As i said, I believe it is a double prophecy. The word "almah" does not specify whether the woman is virgin or not,
so the above claim (was not supposed to be virgin) is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v09-n01/almah The word name also has the meaning of renown, reputation, title. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name By the Bible Jesus is God in flesh fulfilling the prophecy of who He was. "I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people." (Leviticus 26:12)
What it all boils down to is that Matthew was trying to fabricate a prophecy about the virgin birth
(which, again, was itself just a myth that arose in the years after the death of Jesus) from the Hebrew Scriptures.
But He got tripped up by the Septuagint translation, for in that translation the Hebrew word for young woman got
translated into Greek with a word that was more ambiguous and could have been taken as meaning virgin.
Response: So far the user did provide no evidence of Matthew fabricating a prophecy. To prove it, he must have brought testimonies of Mary and Joseph, or a number of people knowing them directly, testifying their words that Jesus was not born from God, but from normal sexual contact between Mary and Joseph or any other human. However he did provide none, in fact both Luke and Matthew talk of virgin birth. Thus two earliest witnesses against one his own, very late (by his own made up criteria). The only given excuse is that in his view somehow Bible could not mean virgin and God would not want to give birth to a son, even though these ideas are both given in the Bible long before.
Also, in several other places in the New Testament, the idea of a virgin birth is negated.
In Romans 1:3 and Acts 2:30, for example, Jesus is described as being of the seed of David "according to the flesh,"
which would rule out the idea of a virgin birth.
Response: no cherry picking, please, this is a bad excuse. If one claims that Luke did forge his Gospel, as this person did before, he can't be sure he did not sure forge the Acts too, so he cannot use it, to prove or disprove something. A book is read fully for the full picture, not only the parts which you like. Jesus is a descendant of king David through Joseph, who was a physical descendant of David by flesh and by law. However he noted the following. CONCLUSION The user claimed that Matthew and Luke are fabrications. His argument is that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are late in origin, without defining what exactly is "early" and "late", appealing to a misleading arbitrary criteria, ironically a fabrication itself. At the same time he did bring no earlier witnesses claiming that Jesus' was just a man. Even Paul's letters, if considered the earliest recorded sources, do call Jesus as Son of God. The first references to beliefs denying Jesus' divinity do date after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, that is later than "late" by his criteria. To claim that the Isaiah's prophecy is wrong, he thinks it is okay to use "much later" translations of the Bible by Jews hostile to Christian faith, as known by multiple hebrew versions created after Christian faith.
Then, he insists that a word and sign from God can only mean one thing (that is a natural birth), as if all-powerful God is unable to cause a virgin to become pregnant, that the prophecy is only directed to Ahaz in his own time, even though the address is general to the house of David also ignoring defining prophecies about the child to be born in later chapters 8-11,
expounding on the descendant of David, the Branch, who is a light to nations,
not just being local to Israel. This way he contradicts himself, allowing himself to use the arbitrary made up excuse criteria of "late" against the Gospels, discarding the oral preaching by apostles and the earlier versions such as Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, atested by the Bible and ancient Christian writers.
Yet then he allows himself to use the much later beliefs that virgin birth is a myth, along with late version of Hebrew Bible text and late interpretation. He rejects the possibility of multiple fulfillment of prophecies, both on local and global level, as shown in the Bible repeatedly. This way the arguments of the user show hypocrisy and cherry picking, starting from antichrist beliefs denying Jesus' virgin birth as fact, then attempting to fit and prove them by self-contradicting claims and selective reading, by seeing and hearing only what he wants to see and listen to.
Comments