7 Responses to Did the Early Christians Believe in the Virgin Birth

1. Charles says:

   February 1, 2024 at 8:12 am

   Instead of citing dissidents and unbelieving scholarship of the kind you have so much derided in this blog as authoritative (who claims Matthew was written as late as 85 AD, when Paul over 20 years earlier cites it as ‘scripture’?! 1 Tim.5.17) how about asking some different questions?

   Why does LXX repeatedly translate Isa.7. 14 as ‘parthenos’ a virgin?

   Were Messianics rejected from Jerusalem, but so in control of the texts?

   Why was the sign of a young woman bearing a child so remarkable, it was still awaited & expected for 8 centuries?

   What relevance does it have to His title, Immanuel? Why is the whole land attributed to Him? Isa.8.8, perhaps the answer lies in v.10.

   Reply
2. yourphariseefriend says:

   February 1, 2024 at 2:43 pm

   Do you really believe that the sign to Ahaz to be fulfilled in the (then) near-future is a prophecy about someone who lived and died centuries later?

   Reply
3. False Messiah says:

   February 2, 2024 at 2:20 pm

   I am the one who produced the video so your criticism is on me. You do bring up a number of good points and I hope to address them all, G-D willing.

   You call the Christians who rejected the virgin birth, dissidents. Well I address that at the end of my video. The reason why they were dissidents and in the minority is because the version of Christianity followed by former pagans became the majority and they understood the title son of G-D differently than how it would have been understood from a Jewish context.

   You criticize my video because I appeal to unbelieving scholars. Even if I take the view of conservative Christian scholars who say that the gospels were composed around 45 CE, that’s 15 years after Jesus’ death. At least a decade after Paul converted and started making many converts among the Pagan Romans who would have understood the title ‘son of G-D’ differently than Jews understood it.

   You cite 1 Timothy 5:17 as evidence that Paul knew and quoted the gospel of Luke. 1 Timothy is a forgery. This is not just the view of secular scholarship but is found within early Christian tradition. Marcion (a devotee of Paul) does not include it in his canon (which mainly composed of Paul’s epistles). It is not accepted by Basilides or Tatian either.

   As for the LXX translating Isaiah 7:14 as Parthenos, I actually address that issue in my video titled ‘Why Matthew translated Isaiah 7:14 as virgin’

   I’m not sure why you think the Christians in Jerusalem used the text of the LXX. The LXX is written in Greek and was mainly used by Jews in the diaspora, not by Jews in Judea who mainly spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.

   As for why the sign of a young woman bearing child being remarkable, please see the NET Bible on Isaiah 7:14 in the footnote there. FYI the NET Bible was composed by 100 evangelical Christian scholars.

   I’m not sure why you think that the sign of a virgin giving birth was anticipated by Jews for centuries about the Messiah. In all of the Messianic literature discovered from the 2nd Temple period (and there is a lot) none of them speak of the Messiah being born of a virgin. In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah is addressing king Ahaz and he says ‘The L-RD will give YOU a sign.’ It’s clear that the sign is intended for Ahaz.

   Isaiah 8:8 is actually a reference to Assyria’s army. Verse 10 speaks about G-D’s salvation from the Assyrians. The name of the child is symbolizing how G-D would be with them in those times to save them from the Assyrians. It has nothing to do with a divinely born child 7 centuries later.

   Hope this helps. Shalom!

   Reply
   • Concerned Reader says:

     February 19, 2024 at 3:35 am

     I don’t think Christians actually understand very well just how much it would help their position to deny.the virgin birth doctrine, ironically.

     The New Testament records that Jesus has brothers and sisters, and claims plainly that his family has davidic connections from its earliest strata.

     (A dude with brothers, sisters, Nephews, Cousins, etc. AND A BROTHER KNOWN AS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, this all being claimed right out the gate within 50 years of Jesus’ death would mean it is not likely to be a myth.)

     Paul calls him a son of David according to the flesh. Hes writing in the 50s CE and dead by 64 CE.

     Hegesippus 110-180 CE mentions blood relatives of Jesus, grandsons of his brother Jude, being persecuted by Romans because of their Davidic lineage.

     Both of the Geneologies in Mathrw and Luke give readers the two seperate accounts showing JOSEPH’S CONNECTION TO KING DAVID. Africanus even uses Levirate marriage as an early attempt to reconcile the differences and explain why the lines are different.

     As the video mentions, even Luke betrays the VB doctrine by saying Joseph is his father.

     Ebionites said Joseph was his father.

     It was VERY important to early Christians apparently to say Jesus was the son of David.

     To a Jewish audience versed in biblical laws, Jesus would only count as a son of David, as a more valid candidate, if his biological father was related to David. AND THATS WHAT THEY CLAIMED lol

     Ironically, the propogation of the virgin birth narrative was probably a boon for many Jews trying to avoid Christianity, so it all works out I guess.

     Reply
     • LarryB says:

       February 19, 2024 at 11:12 am

       CR

       if they gave up the virgin birth wouldn’t they also have to give up his divinity? I also thought his association to David was through his virgin birth and he would lose that also if he gave it up.

       Reply
       • Concerned Reader says:

         February 19, 2024 at 4:48 pm

         no not really. There were a lot of texts claiming that Jesus was adopted as the son of God either at his baptism, or because of his resurrection ftom the Dead.

         The gospel fragments from the ebionites for example mention that the Holy Spirit entered him at his baptism, and that he became the begotten son of God then.

         The rabbis would say that the line Joseph comes from was cut off from the monarchy, at Jeconiah so it wouldn’t help Jesus, but the thing is, if you look at any Messiah claimant who has tried, none of them actually meet the genealogy requirements.

         most people today who claim to descend from David come from lines that were just as matrilineal or just as problematic as Jesus’s genealogy.

         so no they wouldn’t actually lose much theological ground if they abandoned it, and it would help because The Narrative wouldn’t have a mythological tone to it.

         if you said Jesus was just the son of Joseph and Mary, and that his brother Jude had grandchildren, his brother James was a leader who was martyred, Jesus becomes a lot more concrete.

         Although it is important to know that even in Pagan sources that claimed someone may have been born miraculously take Alexander the Great, they still knew he had a real human father, namely Philip the Macedonian.

         the Virgin birth story is a pretzel of Christianity’s own making, but it’s a story that wouldn’t have been as much of a problem in ancient times as it is today. Kings and heroes in the past have miraculous birth stories, our associated with deities, Etc. It made figures more prestigious.

         I think the Church fled from Jesus’s Humanity because it makes him so much more like various other Messiah claimants.

         look at what happened with the messianism surrounding the Rebe from Lubavitch,

         it’s almost a mirror for some early Christian beliefs.

         if Jesus is just a normal human guy who was made special because he rose from the dead to God’s right hand, he’ll have more competition from other people claiming that their guy is the messiah.

         you actually see this when you look at the figure of John the Baptist. There were some and how he is treated in the different Gospels. There were people that thought the Baptist was a Messiah and that Jesus was not. The Clementine literature mentions that belief and tries to refute it.

         Christianity Today would not be harmed by abandoning the Virgin birth Doctrine, because it’s part of the cultural fabric. Millions of Gentiles believe in Bible stories because of that Christian religious movement. That’s not small potatoes.

         and if you say it turns out that he was a human being, son of David, Son of God by Resurrection, first fruits Etc. Of the Resurrection, he is still a cultural fixture for almost one quarter of the world’s population.

         Reply
         • LarryB says:

           February 19, 2024 at 9:14 pm

           CR

           Thanks for the response. I’m sure your right for most Christians. The Catholic church may have a bigger problem with Mary being the co-advocate and all? Todays rosary might take a big hit.