If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone


The Virgin-Birth Fairy-Tale

The only sources the Church recognises for accurate information about the life of Jesus are the four gospels. Only two of them, Matthew and Luke seem to teach the Christian idea expressed about Jesus in the Nicene Creed, “By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man.” This is the outlandish idea that Mary conceived Jesus without sperm and without sex and gave birth to him as a Virgin. The baby in her womb was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
However, if you take a closer look, it is really only Matthew that seems to be saying it. One eyewitness testimony is not enough in the Bible and Jesus himself accepted that rule and Matthew doesn’t even pretend to be an eyewitness or to be using eyewitnesses.
The Bible says Jesus was true man and like us in all things but sin. We know from genetics that a lot of the evil things we do come from a genetic predisposition. It follows then that Jesus inherited the inclination towards evil from his mother and the sperm that fertilised her egg or from both. God then as good as tempted Jesus to sin by doing that to him. Yet the Bible says God is too good to suggest that we sin. He doesn't tempt.




Oddly certain races like the Canaanites were to be destroyed at divine command but the men of Israel were allowed to forcibly marry their virgins and impregnate them! See Deuteronomy 21. This shows no understanding of conception. The women were seen as host mothers.   The reformer Menno Simons argued that Mary was not the mother of Jesus but she was just an incubator for Jesus.  The popular Christian view is that Mary was the mother of Jesus but he had no human father.  If Mary was not Jesus' mother then her high place in Catholicism is just stupid and she was degraded by God.


Many argue that a woman conceiving a child without a father in a loving relationship is being degraded anyway.  She is not a host mother but treated as something that is no better than a host mother.

The Gospel of Matthew seems to say that Jesus had no father but the Holy Spirit and was born of a virgin. The Gospel of Mark has Jesus being referred to as the son of Mary by others. Matthew when revising Mark's material describes Jesus as having a mother called Mary rather than being called the Son of Mary and states that he is the carpenters son. Compare Mark 6:3 with Matthew's parallel at 13.55. Is this not the carpenter the son of Mary says Mark. Matthew turns it into Is this not the son of the carpenter and is his mother not called Mary? Mark's version tells us that as the Jews had to call Jesus the Son of Mary it implies that he had an unnamed father.

Matthew starts off with a genealogy for Jesus Christ. It says that all the generations from Abraham to Jesus make up three sets of fourteen which is too incredible a coincidence to be right. The fact that Matthew puts four women in the genealogy who had been naughty sexually certainly hints that Mary had misbehaved with Joseph. The loose women are mentioned to show that Jesus had loose women as ancestors so his mother might have been a naughty girl too.

It calls Jesus, Jesus Christ. Christ means Messiah which means anointed one or king. Any king of Israel was a Messiah.

One of Jesus’ ancestors was the infamous Jeconiah or Jehoiachin to whom the Lord God revealed that none of his descendants would be blessed by him and allowed to take the throne of Israel. Matthew made the mistake of giving information that Jesus was not the Messiah at all but a fraud. It is convenient that this blunder is not mentioned in Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Haley claims that Matthew left some kings out of the genealogy in which this man’s name appeared because they were so wicked! An obvious lie!
Against the view that the genealogy was symbolic and not literal one has to ask what is the point of creating a non-literal and symbolic genealogy? The gospel writers believed in miracles so the three sets of fourteen might have been thought by Matthew to have been a miracle. You cannot take the sets as a hint that the genealogy was not to be taken seriously. If it was, then who is to say that anything in the gospel is meant to be taken seriously?

This is Matthew’s story about Jesus’ origin. Mary had just got betrothed to Joseph and was found to be pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit and Joseph being a fair person did not want to divorce her and shame her but to send her away quietly. And angel made him change his mind when he told him that the baby was by the Holy Spirit and the baby fulfilled a prophecy from Isaiah that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. Joseph did not have sex with her until she had a son who he called Jesus.

Joseph thought she had been with another man and got pregnant. But she could have come into contact with Joseph’s sperm which would have meant the pregnancy was a marvel worked by the Holy Spirit though not a miracle in the magical sense.

The Holy Spirit has no sperm so he did not fertilise Mary. Making a sperm out of nothing to do the trick cannot amount to conception by the Holy Spirit.


Did he make Mary’s egg multiply without a sperm?


So considering the options then the Spirit did not literally become Jesus’ father so don’t take the notion of Mary conceiving by the Holy Spirit too literally, it stands for something.


The doctrine is clear that the Holy Spirit is not Jesus' father in any sense.  So conception by the Holy Spirit is definitely very vague.  Conception by the Holy Spirit is a parable for what else could it be for it is obvious the Spirit cannot be Jesus' father and yet he must be. 


It stands for an unusual conception but not necessarily a magical one.


By “conceived of the Holy Spirit” Matthew might have meant a conception by a man without intercourse which certainly can happen. The Holy Spirit was believed to have caused the pregnancy in the sense that it was so unusual and seemingly almost impossible. It is a miracle in the sense of a marvel. God had more to do with it than he would have even had penetration occurred. If X’s sperm was put into Y’s testicles and Y fathered a child with this sperm then it would still be true to say that Y's woman conceived by Y. You could also say that the conception took place by X too.
The angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife for she conceived what was in her by the Holy Spirit. This is a metaphor for saying that the Holy Spirit approved and assisted the conception. It does not exclude Mary for example having got pregnant accidentally or by sexual molestation. It does not exclude a human father. It is simply silent on the mechanics of the conception. The Holy Spirit is not a man and doesn’t make sperm and Jesus is not the Son of the Holy Spirit. Conceived by the Holy Spirit just means that the child was a gift from God in some unique sense.
If Mary had committed adultery and got pregnant, that would not mean her child couldn’t be a gift from God and the Son of God in the sense that he was God’s top man. Adultery is not excluded at all. The sin was in the adultery not in having the child for the child was just the consequence of sin and that doesn’t make having the child a sin.
Joseph decided not to part with Mary when an angel explained that the pregnancy was approved by God.
Even if the angel excluded adultery, that could be a hint that Joseph’s sperm was used by God and the Holy Spirit made her pregnant by him without intercourse. It could be argued that even God has no right to make a married woman pregnant without her man.

The Gospel of Matthew alone seems to tell us that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, parthenos in the Septuagint which he used, by his quote from Isaiah. In the original Hebrew- and it is only the original that counts, the word translated virgin was almah which meant a young woman. But even the term virgin usually meant a sexually inexperienced female but not always (page 29, The Womb and the Tomb). In the NABs Biblical Dictionary and Concordance under VIRGIN it is admitted that every unmarried girl was called a virgin for brevity and out of habit (page 239). In Jewish Rabbinic tradition, a virgin could mean a girl who had had sex but was not fertile. Perverted marriages with minors were allowed in those days. The Rabbis actually held that if a child was born before a girl started to menstruate that the birth could be called a virgin birth and, obviously, the conception would be a virginal conception (page 27). It is nonsense to deny that Matthew could have meant that Mary was this kind of virgin. Some say there is no evidence that he did but then there is no evidence that he meant a literal virgin either. Those who believe that it would not be as likely for Joseph to have married a minor who was therefore unlikely to be a literal virgin if he was a widower are also talking rubbish. A virgin who is raped is psychologically a virgin though not one physically. Was Mary raped? Some argue that God would not let the mother of his son be raped by her husband or anybody else when she was only a child herself. That is also an absurd argument. Look what God let the people do to Jesus.

Remember that Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, was considered a virgin even after Shechem had raped her (Genesis 34:2,3).

When Matthew used the Isaiah text though the original Hebrew did not have a virgin birth in mind it is a hint that he did not teach what Christians say he taught. It is the clue that shows that Jesus had a strange and godly origin but not a miraculous one.

You can say that a virgin shall conceive and give birth meaning the normal way. The woman is a virgin now but later she won’t be and will give birth.

We are told that Joseph had no sex with Mary until she had her firstborn son. The Protestants argue that this until means that Joseph slept with her after she became a mother to Jesus. The Catholics claim that “Mary was a life-long virgin, until in the Bible does not necessarily mean what it means to us so the verse does not refute the Catholic position.” But even so it would be a strange word to use if the Matthew author wanted to declare the virgin birth for what is the point of doing it ambiguously? It means Joseph had sex with her after she had Jesus. Also we see the Matthew author means until by until for he wrote that the Holy Family stayed in Egypt until Herod died. Mary and Joseph being husband and wife and not having sex would conflict with the early Christian doctrine that a couple didn't have the right to refrain from sex unless for a little while as a form of self-control (1 Corinthians 7). If Joseph and Mary didn't have sex then they didn't reflect this tradition. It is safe to assume that the early Church would not have created the tradition if Mary and Joseph had a celibate "marriage".

Matthew says that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The angel appears in a dream. Matthew doesn’t actually state that he was sure the dream was a real vision. He only reports it. It follows that we are not obligated then to believe what the angel said. This observation is fatal to the silly tradition that Matthew taught the virgin birth. Matthew only says that it all fulfilled the words of Isaiah but these words say nothing about a virgin giving birth while still being a virgin. As a result of the dream, Joseph might have groomed Jesus to be a saviour. But still it could just have been a dream. He also said that in obedience to the angel of the Lord, Joseph took Mary as his wife. Does this mean the dream was real? Does it mean he saw a real angel? You would speak of a revelation from an angel of the Lord even if the angel was not really an existing being but just something you saw in a dream.
Joseph didn’t touch her. Matthew said that after the dream of the angelic visitation Joseph took Mary as his wife but didn’t touch her until she gave birth to her firstborn son. It doesn’t say he hadn’t been having sex with her before the visitation. The idea that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth is not in the Bible but is just a Roman Catholic invention.
Mary must have told Joseph about the pregnancy but as Matthew says he noticed she was pregnant and decided to get rid of her so it must have been a surprise to her as well. She didn’t tell him until after he noticed. He trusted a dream more than her when he was going to reject her. Her word wasn’t good enough.
Joseph didn’t touch her after learning of the pregnancy. We must not read anything into this for there are countless reasons why he might not have touched her. Yet it is supposed that it was because she gave birth in a holy and miraculous way making it wrong to touch her. But God commands sex for having children though he says the body is a temple of the Holy Ghost. If it was bad for Joseph to love Mary physically then all sex is evil and sinful and dirty.

The miracle of the virginal conception by God and not man would be unnecessary. Even by the standard of the Law of Moses which required two reliable witnesses we cannot believe in it for there is only Matthew’s word for it as we shall soon see. Jesus accepted the Law fully implying that he was not virginally conceived for if he knew that Matthew alone would say it or if Mary alone would say it – for only she would know the truth – then it would be unacceptable. The miracle certainly does imply that sex is disgusting and unfit for bringing the saviour into the world though Matthew may not have meant it like that and stupidly thought that the miracle was needed for other reasons.
Though some scholars feel that Matthew distorted Isaiah to make a prediction about a baby, Immanuel, born from a young woman not necessarily a virgin centuries before Matthew did not teach the virgin conception.  It is possible he did not teach the virgin birth as in literal virgin birth.  They think he twisted the text to invent a miraculous virgin conception and birth.  If so then he mined Isaiah to be able to get his new invention accepted as history.

The Gospel of Luke mentions neither the virginal conception nor the virgin birth. Even if it mentions or indicates a Virgin conception it still doesn't say if Mary will be a Virgin when she gives birth. Perhaps she conceived as a Virgin and had sex during pregnancy. This indicates the observation of modern theologians that Luke cares mostly about showing Jesus came from God and was sent by him. He does not care how the conception happened - its not important.
Here's the Luke story.

The angel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary that she will have a son.

She asks how this can happen when she is a virgin. She seems to think he meant she would get pregnant there and then and then he says that God will give her a baby reminding her that it is a future thing. We know that this is only an assumption of hers because the angel never said that she would get pregnant while they were talking.

Mary meant that she had no husband, legal sexual partner. The angel tells her that God WILL descend upon her help her to conceive his son. The will shows that the angel is correcting her for thinking that she was to have a conception there and then. This could mean will Mary have a baby without a man. It could mean she will get a man to father her son. It could mean she will conceive by sperm without loss of her virginity which is certainly possible.

The angel replies that God will descend upon her which is why her baby will be the Son of God.

The child will be the Son of God because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in Mary which makes the child a servant of God. But the Son of God could have been meant in the Jewish sense of a man being extra-close to God as evidenced by Luke 20:36. Mary asked how she could conceive without a man after the angel told her the baby would be the son of the Most High God. She knew the angel meant Son of God as in exceptionally holy prophet.

Then Gabriel tells her that her cousin Elizabeth has conceived. Some translations say conceived also which would imply that Mary had just conceived there and then.
The NAB rejects this word also. It appears in the Revised Standard Version and in the Amplified Bible. If it should be there then Mary was pregnant already. Luke never says the angel was exactly right in everything so he could have been mistaken when he said that Mary will conceive. The angel was sent to announce who the baby would be and about Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Also can mean: “conceived like you will.” This interpretation implies that Mary will conceive with a man like Elizabeth had done.
Also does not mean she conceived there and then because the angel uses the future tense for her conceiving and the also is said before she consents to become pregnant.

Also, conceived may have meant the seed starting off the process that makes a person or conceived could mean when the foetus becomes a person for at that point the person exists. Mary could have been pregnant before the angel came but not carrying a person yet and the angel is referring to the beginning of personhood when he tells her she will conceive. The ancients did not know what conception was and so used the word both for the origin of the body and/or the origin of the person. The Jews did not consider an early embryo to be a person as is obvious from Exodus 21 which does not prescribe a severe penalty for causing a miscarriage.
The angel tells Mary that Elizabeth despite being barren in her old age has conceived because nothing is impossible with God. The angel is saying that conception is down to God. But it does not exclude Elizabeth and her husband having had sex resulting in conception. Where the angel is unclear about Mary having a miracle conception, the angel is explicit that Elizabeth had one.

Mary agrees to the whole thing then.
Catholics note this: her consent is not asked for though she gives it and it could be that it was not up to her or the pregnancy had already started. Yet Catholics have the cheek to say that Mary is co-redeemer and co-mediatrix with God for her consent gave us our Saviour. This is nonsense. God gives many women babies without their consent. Mary could have got pregnant whether she wanted it or not. Given God's record, she would have been made pregnant without her consent. If Mary's consent was so important then God must have regarded her like some kind of goddess or equal. Catholicism has always tended to put Mary above God.

Luke does not say when Mary became pregnant. Elizabeth seems to say she was pregnant when she arrived at her house. The spirit-filled Elizabeth blesses the fruit of Mary’s womb. She might have foreseen a pregnancy and used the present tense because she was seeing it. And you can say to a virgin, “Blessed is your baby”, when you know she will have one when she will get married. Changing the tenses was in the prophetic tradition. Mary might have told her about Gabriel first.

Christians claim that Luke implied the miraculous virginal conception when he said that Mary was unmarried and a virgin (1:27) for that was an unnecessary emphasis for all knew that unmarried women were virgins. But perhaps he was answering or afraid of slanders against Mary or just giving details, in accidental emphasis, like some historians do? It is even said that Luke 2:5 implies that Mary was pregnant before the wedding to Joseph which it does not. All it says is that Joseph took his pregnant wife to be enrolled. What imaginations the Christians have! It is nonsense to say that if it implies anything that it must be the virginal conception for it couldn’t mean that Joseph made Mary pregnant before they wed. The gospels never suggest that Mary and Joseph were angels of chastity or that the former interpretation is right.


It seems Mary and Joseph were married not just betrothed when they went to Bethlehem for being engaged and travelling around for miles and days while being heavily pregnant would have been a source of scandal especially when Mary would have been little more than a child.

Later, Luke makes Mary say that Joseph was the father of Jesus (2:48). And Luke says that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Luke is not totally convinced that Jesus was Joseph’s son though he thinks that he was. Many say that the genealogy he gives for Jesus is Josephs. If that is true then he is sure enough however to give Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph.
Mary in Luke, if she conceived without Joseph who Luke says was her espoused (Luke 1:27) was no better than an adulteress when she got pregnant without his consent. And believers say banning adultery is about family values!
Take Luke 1 to be promising a Virgin conception. Then the statements that the conception will happen because the Holy Spirit will descend and the power of the Most High will cover her with its shadow resulting in the child being holy imply that the baby is sacred for it wasn't created through sex.
Note too that though the Angel was sent by God that does not mean what the angel said was infallible or correct. Visionaries report at times difficulty in seeing and hearing and getting the message from the entities they see. Mary was very unclear to St Bernadette at Lourdes. Luke wrote that when the angel appeared and said to Mary, "Rejoice O Highly Favoured for the Lord is with you" she was deeply disturbed by these words and didn't understand what this greeting could mean. She wasn't at all confident about her vision - note that this doesn't amount to her being unconfident about the angel but it may. She certainly did not think she was exceptionally favoured by God or had been sinless. And Jesus brought her nothing but suffering. The angel made a mistake. The story does nothing to justify belief in the virginal conception of Jesus Christ.

Let us check if the other New Testament writers knew of the virgin birth.

In Mark (6:3), Jesus is called the Son of Mary by Jews. The Jewish practice was to call a child the son of his father. Sexism reigned then. This title does not imply that Jesus had to be called the Son of Mary for he had no father at all. If they meant that then they believed in the virginal and miracle conception which is most unlikely. They would not have been amazed at his wisdom if they believed that a miracle brought him into the world. They called him the Son of Mary because they did not know Joseph. They had to call him something. Joseph seems to have been dead or away with another woman then. Different areas have different customs and idioms so maybe this one had no fault with calling a man the son of his mother.

It is imagined that Paul spoke of the virginal conception when he said that Jesus was born of a woman (Galatians 4). The Jews traced descent from the father and his male ancestors not the mother or the female ancestors. But in Job 14:1 we read about man born of woman. Born of woman is just a way of saying that you are human. And Paul was speaking to Greeks who used that kind of terminology.

What tribe you belonged to in Israel depended on what tribe your natural father, not your mother, belonged to. Israel was sexist in the extreme. Mary was not descended from Judah. Yet in Hebrews (7:14) we are told that Jesus came from the unpriestly tribe of Judah inferring that Joseph or at least another member of the tribe of Judah must have been his father.

Christian scholars claim that the Jews in the New Testament accused Jesus of being born outside marriage. They argue that Jesus must have been either illegitimate or conceived of a virgin who was betrothed to a man named Joseph in order for the rumour to begin.

An illegitimate man could certainly have been the Son of God. The way he was born was not his fault. Some Christians might say that God would not allow that for too many would use it as an excuse for having babies out of wedlock. It is an error to argue what these Christians argue because the gospels insist that there was a lot of nonsense believed about Jesus. Some even thought that he was John the Baptist raised from the dead. He was slandered and he was the target of much revolting gossip. The Jews might have called Jesus illegitimate not because they thought he was born out of wedlock but because he claimed to be the Son of God and they thought he was really the spiritual Son of the Devil and not God’s legitimate Son. If he was a fraud then he was illegitimate for he couldn’t have been a son, a child, of God at all. The Jews would not call him a bastard to demean his virgin birth for that is something they would have wanted nobody to remember.

The Gospel does not say that the Jews slandered Jesus’ birth. Despite Father Raymond Brown (page 65, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus) saying that the Matthew Gospel claimed that there was a rumour saying Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus was adulterous it says no such thing. It only says that Joseph thought it was adultery not that anybody else did or that people were saying that. Everybody would have known she was pregnant before marriage but that didn’t signify any adultery. Joseph was stated to have meant to get a quiet divorce and that wouldn’t have been possible if there had been public knowledge that her baby didn’t belong to him.
The Jews told Jesus that unlike him they were not born of fornication but were God’s children (John 8:41). But just before that they told him that his father was Satan. They did not have illegitimacy in mind at all for they did not suppose that a person was no child of God if he was born outside marriage. By being born of fornication they meant being born under the spell of the Devil. Born of Satan corresponds to the metaphor Matthew uses conceived by the Spirit. Fornication, evil union, is a good metaphor for sin because it is uniting your soul with the Devil. In plain language, the Jews meant this, “Unlike you, we are God’s holy children but you are the fruit of the Devil’s work from your birth”. If the gospel did slander Jesus as having been born out of marriage, then the tales of Jesus being popular as a prophet are fictitious because the Law of Moses found illegitimate children detestable and they were banned from the altar meaning Jesus would have been hated by the Jews and would have got no followers. His claiming to be Son of God would have been thought to be intolerable blasphemy.

You can suppose that the Jews were just returning insult for insults and did call Jesus a bastard blackening his birth if you wish and did not mean what they said.
However it is undeniable that though no trace of the illegitimacy rumour can be found among the Jews of Jesus’ generation plenty of them very long after his time said he was born out of wedlock as a result of adultery. If Matthew had been telling the truth that Mary had been found pregnant before her time this would have been used against Jesus as well for surely God would send his son only after his mother and the man thought to be his father had married properly and conceived following the marriage. Jesus would have got no followers.

There is no evidence of a rumour that Jesus was illegitimate among the people of his day. If he had been illegitimate or believed to be he would have had no followers for it was believed that the Jewish scriptures said that an illegitimate person was unclean and so could not be a messenger of God.

Mary would not have told anybody if Joseph was not Jesus’ father for that would have cost her her life.  Nobody would believe the miraculous explanation.

There is no evidence from the first century that Jesus was born of a virgin. The first Christians knew it still made Jesus an illegitimate child and the Lord had said that illegitimate children could not enter his congregation even to the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:2) and so they would not have believed it until the pagan influence crept in.

We read in the Old Testament how angels got women pregnant. See Genesis 6.  The Bible also says that occasionally God himself comes as an angel.  Is that why Paul wanted women to cover their heads in church because of the angels?  Conceived by the Holy Spirit could be cover for sex with an angel.  As it is not natural sex Mary could still be classed as a woman who is a virgin in the sense that she never had sex with a man.  Sarah the wife of Abraham got pregnant in her very very old age which may imply a virgin conception in the sense that her husband was too old to have sex with her.  There is no case for arguing that the story of Jesus' birth as understood by Christians is probably true for there are no parallels.  There is enough out there and who says we need exact parallels?

Jewish law banned illegitimate children from full membership in the Jewish religion until the tenth generation - Deuteronomy 23:2.  If Jesus was illegitimate or if he was assumed to be by his people (because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and they would not have believed that) it is hard to account for the gospel data which shows he experienced no discrimination and even ministered as a Rabbi.  He got into the temple to preach as well.


We know that the Christian doctrine, “I believe in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary”, as the ancient apostles’ creed puts it is unbiblical for it means that the Spirit took the place of sperm and the Virgin was a real virgin. Under the influence of paganism, most Christians have imagined that they see it in their superstitious scripture.

Scholars sometimes argue that the virginal conception of Jesus must really have happened for it is unique. In pagan stories there is divine lust involved and the god comes down and has sex with the girl who later has his child. But the Bible said that God made Adam without a woman so it was easy for the Christians to say Jesus was made without a man. Uniqueness only proves a good imagination not that the story is true.

The magic conception and birth are not in the New Testament and so they must have been concocted later.

The main reason they were made up seems to have been the fact that the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, rendered Isaiah 7:14 as: “The virgin shall conceive and have a son and his name will be Emmanuel”. The word translated virgin is almah in the original Hebrew which simply means young woman and does not mean virgin for the Hebrew has words like betoula, betouli and tahor. So the translation is a bad one. The verse looks like a prophecy of a virginal conception and birth but it is not. You can point to a virgin and say, “That virgin will be a mother”. You mean that the girl who is a virgin now will have at least one child the normal way. Moreover, we know that parthenos, the word for virgin might not mean a literal virgin. Though the text is not a proof that virgins can have babies by God without a man there is enough in it to make a person think of the doctrine and misunderstand it in the way Christians have done.
When you read the prophecy in context, you see that the prediction was made to King Ahaz in about 734 BC. He was told that he should trust in God in his political troubles not the Assyrians. Ahaz didn't listen so Isaiah uttered a prophecy of doom and said that the young woman will have a son called Emmanuel, meaning God is with us, and before he grows up the destruction of Ahaz's kingdom will be seen. Emmanuel then is not God with us as in God is our friend but is God is with us as judge. This paragraph is based on the analysis of John Dominic Crossan in Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, John Dominic Crossan, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994, page 18.

It is foolish to say that the verse did not suggest the magic conception because Luke did not use the verse to defend the doctrines he put forward. There were lots of scripture passages that Luke could have put in his book as if they were predictions about Jesus but didn’t. It was in his translation of the Old Testament and that was enough for Luke. And besides, Luke would have looked at you as if you were nuts if you told him he wrote that Jesus had no father and was born of a virgin.

Many argue: “Mary and her family thought that Jesus was mad according to Mark 3. They would not had he been conceived and born miraculously and virginally.”

It seems to some that Mark does not actually say that Mary thought this. He says that Jesus’ family set off to get him and called him mad and that when they arrived Mary was with them. She might have joined them later on so she might not have been one of those who believed him to be nuts. But Mark would have clearly excluded her and he said the family came to get Jesus and she was family. If she did, Mary could have been beside herself with shame, anger and confusion so she might have thought that Jesus was mental even if he had been miraculously born of her until she had time to think and calm down. She could even have done this without sin. But Mary would have been used to Jesus’ bizarre behaviour by then and would not have been so carried away.
The doctrine of a miracle virginal conception and delivery first appeared in the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century. But Ignatius was a fanatic, a murderous man who died horribly in the hope that others would bring a brutal death on themselves because of his example, who cannot be taken seriously. What value is there in what he reported when he said it a century after it happened. People were lucky if they made it to fifty in those days. Ignatius eventually became completely deranged and committed suicide for his religious beliefs in a way too horrible to mention.

There are invalid objections to the miraculous virgin conception.

 “In conception the female must supply twenty three chromosomes and the male the same. If Jesus was made by miraculously created male chromosomes then he was not truly human.”

This is nonsense. Chromosomes are chromosomes wherever they come from. What about Adam? The objection commits the fallacy that a person has to be made the natural way to be a human person. God can make genes and chromosomes out of thin air. It is the kind of body and cells you have that determine that. It is dreadful how some people would argue that a cloned human being is some sort of humanoid animal.

If man and woman did not always exist and reproduce then there must have been something that became them that had no father or mother. If the objection were correct then none of us would be human.

“Jesus would have been female if he had no human father and was made from his mother’s egg alone. The Y chromosomes required to make a child male can only come from a man. He would have been a clone if her cell was all that was used.”

Jesus in the Bible referred to as anthropos (human) and aner – the word for individual male.  Quote from http://www.bible-researcher.com/aner.html All in all, the evidence for another sense of aner is quite weak, and must be used with great caution. In fact, it seems likely that aner has stronger and more exclusive associations with maleness than does the English word "man." End of quote.


God could do magic to turn the female foetus into a male one though it was genetically female. Or he could turn the female genes into male ones.  But that would mean drastic changing and fixing and sounds totally undignified.  It would be no better than making a Jesus without a woman or man from scratch.  No that would make more sense!


Your virgin born Jesus would have to be biologically female for he took his body only from his mother.  Nobody is telling us that as Christ allegedly took his body from his mother without a father that this means he was female in a male looking body. A transgender messiah then!  Or better still!  He was a male impersonator!


The objection that Jesus would have been a girl proves that there was no Virgin Birth in reality but it does not prove that the Christian can drop the doctrine.  The inventors of the absurd doctrine did not think it through.


What about the ancient world thinking that women were men who did not develop correctly?  That effectively says that women are not women - they are just transgender men.  The ancients did not know about the ovum and thought pregnancy had something to do with male seed.  The virginal conception of Jesus is really, in context, about Mary having sperm that she probably made herself.  The sperm did not come from a man but from her.  The maleness imagery for the Holy Spirit would support that!

Here is a nonsensical argument for the magic conception: “Original sin, the state of being born an enemy of God, is passed on by father and mother. Jesus had to be conceived without a father to be conceived without this sin. If Jesus had original sin then he was not the Son of God.”

This argument is dying today though it is so hilarious that it never should have been ever voiced. God made the law that original sin had to be transmitted this way so God can change it. He could have preserved Jesus from it instead of making him without a father to do it. The argument questions the competence of God.

The doctrine of the miraculous conception of Jesus is blasphemous for it has God doing miracles that he has no need of when he could be saving the world from suffering. So whether there is a God or not, the doctrine is untrue.

The New Testament refuses to say what the how of Jesus' conception was - it merely disguises how it happened by the vague notion that it was down to the Holy Spirit. 


The virgin birth doctrine of Christendom is a pack of lies. The Church made it up so that its god could match the pagan Gods by having an alleged miraculous origin. It warns us to pay no attention to apparitions of the Virgin Mary - these visions are deceptive for they testify to a virgin conception and birth that never happened.
Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, HarperSanFrancisco, 1992
The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1973
The Womb and the Tomb, Hugh Montifiore, Fount – HarperCollins, London, 1992
Son of Joseph, The Parentage of Jesus, Geoffrey Parrinder, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1992
Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000
The Jesus Dynasty, James D Tabor, Element Books, London, 2006

Print Friendly and PDF