1) The Apostles of Jesus Seem to Have Known Nothing about a Virgin Birth
The earliest mention of the birth of Jesus to be written is not the nativity stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans. He wrote it after having met with Peter and others who had known in person not only Jesus but also his mother and brothers. Despite learning from them everything they could tell him about Jesus, Paul shows no sign of having heard of a virgin birth. Instead, he wrote that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” and was declared to be the Son of God not through any special birth that Paul mentions but by his resurrection (Romans 1:3-4).
The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, suggesting that Jesus had a virgin birth in Bethlehem (the birthplace of David), were composed later and even his own apostles showed no indication of knowing anything about it. SOURCE
THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE “VIRGIN-BIRTH” FRAUD The most colossal of the blunders of the Septuagint translators, supplemented by the most insidious, persistent and purposeful falsification of text, is instanced in the false translation of the notoriously false pretended “prophecy” of Isaiah vii, 14,—frauds which have had the most disastrous and fatal consequences for Christianity, and to humanity under its blight; the present exposure of which should instanter destroy the false Faith built on these frauds.
The Greek priest who forged the “Gospel according to St. Matthew,” having before him the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah, fables the Jewish Mary yielding to the embraces of the Angel Gabriel to engender Jesus, and backs it up by appeal to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah vii, 14:
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” (Matt. i, 23.)
Isaiah’s original Hebrew, with the mistranslated words underscored, reads: “Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel”;—which, falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. vii, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, “conceived,” which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: “Behold, the young woman has conceived—[is with child)—and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.”
Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. But in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, virgin, with the definite article ‘ha’ in Hebrew, and e in Greek, (the), rendered into the indefinite “a” by later falsifying translators. (See Is It God’s Word? pp. 277-279; EB. ii, 2162; New Commentary on the Holy Scripture, Pt. I, p. 439.) And St. Jerome falsely used the Latin word virgo.
“As early as the second century B.C.,” says the distinguished Hebrew scholar and critic, Salomon Reinach, “the Jews perceived the error and pointed it out to the Greeks; but the Church knowingly persisted in the false reading, and for over fifteen centuries she has clung to her error.” (Orpheus, p, 197.) The truth of this accusation of conscious persistence in known error through the centuries is proved by confession of St. Jerome, who made the celebrated Vulgate translation from the Hebrew into Latin, and intentionally “clung to the error,” though Jerome well knew that it was an error and false; and thus he perpetuated through fifteen hundred years the myth of the “prophetic virgin birth” of Jesus called Christ.
Being criticized by many for this falsification, St. Jerome thus replies to one of his critics, Juvianus: “I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah”! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.) So insistent was the criticism, that he was driven to write a book on the subject, in which he makes a very notable confession of the inherent incredibility of the Holy Ghost paternity-story “For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue, that when Isaiah says, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’ the Hebrew the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH”! (Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, N&PNF, vi, 336.).
So the Greek Father or priest who forged the false “virgin-birth” interpolation into the manuscript of “Matthew,” drags in maybe ignorantly the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah vii, 14, which the Latin Father St. Jerome purposely perpetuated as a pious “lie to the glory of God.” The Catholic and King James Versions purposely retain this false translation; the Revised Version keeps it in, but with a gesture of honesty, which is itself a fraud, sticks into the margin in fine type, after the words “a virgin” and “shall conceive,” the words, “Or, the maiden is with child and beareth,”—which not one in thousands would ever see or understand the significance of. So it is not some indefinite “a virgin” who 750 years in the future “shall conceive” and “shall bear” a son whose name she “shall call” Immanuel, Jesus; but it was some known and definite young female, married or un-married—but not a “virgin”—who had already conceived and was already pregnant, and who beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel, ... who should be the “sign” which “my lord” should give to Ahaz of the truth of Isaiah’s false prophecy regarding the pending war with Israel and Syria, as related in Isaiah vii, and of which the total falsity is proven in 2 Chronicles xxviii, as all may read.
Although Papal Infallibility has declared that “it will never be lawful to grant ... that the sacred writers could have made a mistake” (Leo XIII, Encyc. Provid. Deus; CE. ii, 543), yet, the fraud being notorious and exposed to the scorn of the world, and being driven by force of modern criticism, CE. definitely and positively—though with the usual clerical soft-soaping, confesses this age-long clerical fraud and falsification of Holy Writ, and relegates it to the junk-heap of discredited—but not discarded—dogmatic myth:
“Modern theology does not grant that Isaiah vii, 14, contains a real prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ; it must maintain, therefore, that St. Matthew misunderstood the passage when he said: ‘Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, etc.”! (CE. xv, 451.)
Thus is apparent, and confessed, the dishonesty of “Matthew” and of the Church of Christ in perverting this idle, false and falsified text of Isaiah into a “prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ,” and in persisting in retaining this falsity in their dishonest Bibles as the basis of their own bogus theology unto this day of the Twentieth Century. The Church, full knowing its falsity, yet, clings to this precious lie of Virgin Birth and all the concatenated consequences. Thus it declares its own condemnation as false. Some other viciously false translations of sacred Scripture will be duly noticed in their place.
As Thomas Jefferson prophetically wrote,—as is being verified: “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 apostle Paul does not mention the virgin birth anywhere in his writings. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known of the alleged special conditions of the Messiah's birth that he would have mentioned them in one of his epistles. However, the opposite appears to be true! He considers Yeshua's birth to have been natural and conventional -- with no sign of a virgin birth! The bottom line is: The "virgin birth" story found in mainstream Christianity is derived from the many fables found in the religions of pagan peoples that shared the world of early Christianity!
From about 80 A.D. to the present time, most Christian faith groups have taught that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) was conceived and born by his mother Mary, while she was still a virgin. They believe that this happened by the action of the holy spirit, without an act of sexual intercourse. However, the Virgin Birth story was not new when the Messiah was born. Mythology is full of such stories. An Egyptian Virgin Birth story, told about 2,000 years before the Messiah, had many details identical with those found in the Gospel accounts. What is the TRUTH?
The Greeks of the first few centuries of the Common Era had to pick and choose among the dozens of mystery cults and gods that had sprung up -- each promising riches and eternal bliss in a heavenly afterlife. The Messiah had little to offer these Greeks. He was a mortal Judahite messiah, speaking mainly to the sons of Abraham, so the Messiah's later-added attribute of a virgin birth was necessary if the Messiah was to be made acceptable to the pagans of the Hellenized world. The interpolators of Matthew and Luke proceeded to elevate the Messiah to the status of the Greek savior-gods by inserting, at the front of these gospels, the birth narrative of the Messiah.
Who was Yeshua the Messiah? What was he really like? There are many myths abounding concerning the Messiah -- many errors believed ignorantly and innocently by millions of people. It is time we took off the wraps, and tore through the cobwebs, and smashed our way through the false facades, and revealed the TRUE YESHUA THE MESSIAH OF HISTORY!
The gospels of Mark and John say absolutely NOTHING about the virgin birth of the Messiah, and throughout assume Yeshua to have been of normal human birth. It is only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that the pagan fable of the virgin birth is introduced -- and ONLY in the first two chapters of these gospels. The evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the "Virgin-birth" and "son of God" myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.
'One of the many "proofs" of this astounding claim comes from a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.14 (KJV) which reads, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel.
The verse which mentions a virgin can only be found in the KJV which is incorrectly translated. Other Bibles such as the NEB, RSV and the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Version) do not give credence to the belief in a virgin birth. There are a few points worth noting as we compare the original Hebrew with the English translation of the KJV.
a] In Hebrew the verse reads in the present tense, "iswith child" and not the future tense as recorded in Christian Bibles (KJV.) In Hebrew it states she is pregnant, not will become pregnant. In fact, the Catholic Bible, Isaiah 7.14 reads as follows: "The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son." Jesus was not born until seven hundred years after this sign was given, which certainly could not be described as "soon." The text reads 'is with child', therefore how could this woman be kept pregnant for seven hundred years until Jesus arrived?
b] This is not a prophecy for some future date, it is a 'ot' (sign ). Whenever 'ot' is used in Hebrew it means something which will come to pass immediately. 'Ot' is used elsewhere in the Bible: This shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord (Isaiah 38.7-8), and "If they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign" (Ex 4.8-9). In each case the sign comes to pass immediately, not seven hundred years later.
c] The name of the child was Emmanuel. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Emmanuel. The angel informs Joseph in a dream that Mary will give birth to a son and that he should be called Jesus (Matt. 1:20-21, Luke 2;21.) All the evidence indicates that we are dealing with two different individuals here, Emmanuel and Jesus.
d] The text specifically says, 'the young woman' -'alma' whereas KJV changes the translation to 'a virgin '. The definite article is changed to the indefinite article, whereas the original text is evidently referring to the young woman known to both Isaiah and Ahaz, and not to some unknown person living far in the future. Here the prophet Isaiah is simply relating to the fact that the young woman is having a baby and that will be a sign to king Ahaz.
e] The "sign" was given to King Ahaz and not to the people of Jesus’ day. It concerned the military situation of the time. The meaning is clear if the message is read in context and in its own historical setting (See 2 Kings 16.1-10).
f] If Christian interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is difficult to swallow, it's nothing compared to what we are expected to take seriously in the New Testament. For example, in Matthew 1:20 we are told that Joseph, who was betrothed to Mary, was "told in a dream" all about the situation. In Luke 1 we are told that Mary was informed of the coming virgin birth in a private conversation with an angel. How can such ludicrous claims be historically verified?
g] Skepticism of the virgin birth claim is further confirmed by the fact that extant early Christian writings neither mention it nor shows any awareness of it prior to the writing of the Gospel of Matthew sometime after 80 C. E. It appears nowhere in the authentic epistles of Paul nor in Q.
h] The writer of Mark, the earliest of the canonical gospels, apparently had no knowledge of a virgin birth for the following reasons: 1) no birth narrative, 2) Mark's Jesus only became aware of his divine status when he was baptism, 3) when in Mark 10:17-18 a follower addressed him as "Good Teacher" Jesus replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." thereby not only denying the virgin birth and the incarnation, but also the doctrine of the holy trinity, 4) in Mark 3:19-21 (NRSV) when Jesus arrived back in his home town people were saying that he had lost his mind - gone insane. Upon hearing this, his family became concerned and came to restrain him. So, here again is undeniable proof that the writer of Mark was unaware of a virgin birth because if such a thing had actually happened the last thing anyone, especially his mother, would have suspected was that her divine, virgin-born son was insane. The writers of Matthew and Luke, although they drew heavily from Mark, wisely omitted this revealing little detail. (See Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-20.)
The truth of the matter is that Christians have been misled by the clergy to believe that the child of the young woman in Isaiah 7.14 was no ordinary child but was none other than God himself clothed in a body of flesh, and that it was referring to none other than Jesus of Nazareth who was allegedly born some 700 years later. It's nothing short of absurd.' - SOURCE
Was Jesus Born by a Miraculous Virgin Birth?
“If we wish to continue seeing Luke’s accounts of angelic messages and so forth, as historical events, we’d have to take a large leap of faith: We’d have to assume that while on verifiable matters of historical fact Luke tells all sorts of fairy tales [just mentioned above] but on supernatural matters—which by definition can never be checked—he simply reports the facts. By his arbitrary treatment of history, Luke has shown himself to be an unhistorical reporter—a teller of fairy tales.” Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, (p.14).
When Mary first hears from the angel Gabriel that she is to give birth she objects by saying, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” (Luke 1:34). According to Ranke-Heinemann, “psychologically this sentence can never be spoken, because it states that Mary has relations neither with her husband nor with any other man. She does not say the only thing that she could have said: ‘since I have no sexual relations with my husband.’ Instead she says, ‘with man,’ meaning with any man. This proves that Mary’s objection to the angel is a literary invention.” Putting Away Childish Things, (p.16-17). The way it’s phrased is to justify her virginity to the reader rather than historically retell what might have actually been said.
David L. Edwards in Evangelical Essentials, (pp. 190-193): “Paul’s surviving letters do not refer to the virgin birth. Mark’s gospel also does not mention this miracle. John’s gospel is also silent about a miraculous conception, except that all Christians are ‘born’ not through sex but ‘of God’ (1:13). The story of the Messiah’s birth—of the miraculous star or the appearance of the angels to the shepherds—is said to have been known widely in Jerusalem (Matt. 2:3; Luke 2:17-18). Yet the story is apparently not known by anyone who meets the adult Jesus. The adult John the Baptist, for instance, doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah (Luke 7:19), although we are told that his own mother had fully shared Mary’s experiences before the miraculous birth (Luke 1:39-45). Herod’s massacre of ‘all the boys in Bethlehem…’ is not mentioned in the indignantly careful list of Herod’s atrocities given by the Jewish historian, Josephus. But it is suspiciously like the story of Pharaoh’s massacre of Hebrew boys in Exodus 1:22. In Luke’s narrative the characters, sayings and experiences of John the Baptist’s parents (1:5-25; 57-80) are suspiciously like those of Abraham and Sarah in the book of Genesis, and Mary’s song (1:46-55) resembles the song of Hannah (I Sam. 2:1-10).”
“My own answer is that the virgin birth story is probably fictional. While Mary says, “nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37), we have to consider what is probable. Many legends of miracles surrounding the births of heroes exist in the world’s literature. It is striking that within the Christian Church itself the legend developed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, even though Mark’s gospel speaks plainly of four brothers of Jesus, and sisters (6:3). It seems clear, although tragic, that births avoiding human sex were thought of as being purer and more wonderful than the mystery of the sexual creation of a new human being.” (Edwards, p. 194)
In Matthew 1:20-23 the author claims that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus’ virgin birth: “Immanuel with us.” The context for the prophecy in original Hebrew Isaiah tells us that before any “young woman” (not virgin) shall conceive and bear a son who grows to maturity that Syria, the northern kingdom of Israel, along with the southern Israelite kingdom of Ahaz would all lie devastated. The prophecy in Isaiah says nothing whatsoever about a virginal conception. And it says nothing about a messiah, either. God will indeed be with Ahaz, but not in salvation, but in judgment. “Clearly, somebody went seeking in the O.T. for a text that could be interpreted as prophesying a virginal conception, even if such was never its original meaning. Somebody had already decided on the transcendental importance of the adult Jesus and sought to retroject that significance onto the conception and birth itself. I understand the virginal conception of Jesus to be a confessional statement about Jesus’ status and not a biological statement about Mary’s body. It is later faith in Jesus as an adult retrojected mythically onto Jesus as an infant.” John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, (Harper, 1989, pp. 16-23).
Today, with the advent of genetics, Christian thinkers try to defend the virgin birth on the grounds that the humanity of Jesus was derived from Mary, and his sinlessness and deity were derived from God. They do this because they now know that Mary must have contributed the female egg that made Jesus into a man. [Jesus, being a male, could not have been her clone, otherwise he would be a woman, and if cloned purely from Mary’s genes would nullify the claim that he was God’s son, too]. But the ancients commonly believed that the woman contributes nothing to the physical being of the baby to be born. The mother was nothing but a receptacle for the male sperm, which grew to become a child. The ancient and medieval church believed that Jesus’ humanity was a new creation, and therefore sinless. Modern genetics have forced Christians today to take a new view of the virgin birth based upon genetics. But even with that new view, it doesn’t adequately explain how Jesus is a human being, since a human being is conceived when a human male sperm penetrates a human female egg. Until that happens you do not have the complete chromosomal structure required to have a human being in the first place.
A woman named Diana Duyser saw what she believed was the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich.
I once printed up a drawing of a Santa Clause nailed to a cross that was done by a band from Indianapolis, Indiana. The name of the band, which was also printed on the drawing was Satan Claus. I hung the drawing on the window of my front door and some moisture caused some rusty images to form on each of the hands that looked like blood dripping from them. Yes, I do believe it was a coincidence!