How and Why the Virgin Birth Story Was Created

(Revised 7-4-2008)

I understand why many Christians believe in traditional doctrine and dogma that has been passed down, and I understand that most Christians are good people who understand and try to abide by the golden rule and divine will and intent.

But, unfortunately, some who claim to be Christians are ignorant of that, and are deluded in the belief that they are the "only True Christians." Thus they are as bad as other religious bigots and hypocrites who claim to be the "only true" Muslims or Jews. Therefore, the record must be set straight.

The idea that the Christ Jesus was born of a virgin, that he was the "only begotten son of God," or even God "Himself" or "God Incarnate," and that the only way we can avoid being condemned to hell for eternity is to profess belief of that, is a big part of Christian tradition. The trouble is, it is part of the doctrines of men that the Christ Jesus warned us about.

Granted, many good Christians have believed in it, and many good Christians still do. However, it is a doctrine that can be, has been and still is used by those who have claimed to be Christians but are not. In fact, in that sense, it is a man-made, patriarchal, theocratic, imperialistic doctrine of preeminence and superiority.

As I mentioned in the pages on Christians Divided, The Martyrdom of Jesus, Prophecies About the Messenger, and much more thoroughly in the books, that man-made doctrine is not consistent with Judaic Scriptures (the Old Testament) and not consistent with the actual, core teachings of the Christ Jesus. It has led to horrendous abuses of power during the last sixteen centuries since Christianity was "adopted" by a military empire, and it is still causing a lot of conflict today.

The problem is a misguided theology called "Christian Apologetics," which has for all those centuries been concerned with the defense of man-made "Christian" doctrine about the birth, life, teachings and death of Jesus as expressed in the Nicene Creed. It claims that Jesus was God "Himself," God incarnate, born of a virgin, and will come again.

The theology of Christian Apologetics tries to defend that doctrine because it has long been and still is refuted by many Jewish Rabbinical scholars, and it is questioned and even refuted today by many modern Christian scholars, like Karen Armstrong, Marcus Borg and other members of the respected Jesus Seminar, and John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, William Sloan Coffin, Robert Boston, Robert Fuller, and Michael Barkun, among many others modern religious scholars and authors. And rightly so.

Many people throughout history have come to the same conclusion about such things, about what the birth, life, teachings and death of the Christ Jesus was really about. So in that respect, some of what I say about Jesus is really not new, especially about the myth of the virgin birth.

For example, in 1823 Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third U.S. President) wrote: "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."

In more recent times, John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, wrote: "In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition, whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."

Another eminent Christian scholar, Marcus Borg, seems to agree with that, even though he was more subtle about it. In his book, The Meaning of Jesus, he states: "The stories of (Jesus’ virgin) birth are found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, both written near the end of the first century." Borg points out that earlier writers, such as Paul and Mark, and even John, make no mention of it. Borg feels that there are two possible explanations for this, that "either the tradition of the virgin birth was old, so these authors either didn’t know about it or didn’t consider it important enough to include. Or the tradition didn’t develop until quite late, and the reason most New Testament authors do not mention it is because the stories did not yet exist."

Ultimately, Christians will realize what should be taken literally and what should be recognized as myth or symbolism or allegory in scriptures. After all, throughout the Old Testament we hear of the very unusual births of individuals like Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel, and usually, prior to their birth, an angel appeared, the message of an upcoming birth was given, and a sign was given. All these facts indicate that the story of Jesus followed a very traditional pattern to establish his credentials and divine status. But, as Jesus himself said, only God is the Divine One, and only God is worthy of worship. We should not worship idols of any kind.

In my work I explain exactly why so many wise people have been and are absolutely correct in questioning and even rejecting the virgin birth story, because it is indeed a myth. The day will come when certain other stories in the Christian faith tradition will be recognized as myths too, and we will all honor the Christ Jesus for what he was ... not an idol for worship, not as "God Himself" or even as "the only begotten son of God," but as the great Christ-Avatar, Master Teacher, sacrificial lamb of God, and glorious martyr that he was.

It is now time to understand that a Christ, like an Avatar and other enlightened ones, can speak AS the Holy One, but they do so FOR the Holy One within and above us all.

It was in that role that Jesus may have said some things that have been misunderstood. And, it was in that role that the great Indian Guru and Siddha, Meher Baba, said: "I am the Ancient One. I am the One so many seek and so few find. For no amount of intellect can fathom me. No amount of austerity can attain me. Only when one loves me and loses one’s self in me, am I found."

That is such a profound truth. Those words communicated by Meher Baba, like some of the words attributed to the Christ Jesus, are what the Holy One would say if the Holy One were a person. And they are words that the Holy One did say and does say through a Christ or an Avatar or other genuine servant-representative of God, being one who is fully enlightened and has been blessed with divine self-realization and knowledge that they are one with God and one with humanity.

Fortunately, the real truth about the birth, life and death of Jesus lies in the Bible itself, in both the Jewish Old Testament and Christian New Testament. They actually show that the "virgin birth" story is merely a myth, and there is much evidence of that.

For example, Jesus had to be Joseph's son by natural birth, as was necessary to fulfill the prophecy and the expectation that the Christ would be born "in the line of Abraham and David." Indeed, the fact is that if Joseph had not been the biological father of Jesus, Jesus could not have been born in the line of Abraham and David, because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was born of that line. After all, the genealogy of Jesus is clearly and precisely explained in the Scriptures, counting all the generations from Abraham to David and through Joseph to establish his genealogical descent.

Of course, some fundamentalist, literalist Christians admit there is a problem in establishing Jesus' descent due to the claim of "immaculate conception," but they dismiss it by claiming that the "virgin" Mary was also descended from the line of David. However, that argument is flawed and erroneous. At that time a woman's genealogy was not even considered. In the days of Joseph and Mary the male "seed" was the only factor considered in determining genealogy. They didn't count the woman's genealogy because her womb was considered only like the "soil in which the seed was planted." Just as barren soil could not produce crops, so "barren wombs" could not produce children. Moreover, the woman's egg was not even discovered until 1827. Therefore, claims regarding Mary's genealogy are not valid, and they are certainly not relevant.

In spite of that, conservative fundamentalist literalist Christians still insist that Mary was a virgin and that either her genealogy is somehow valid, or that because Joseph "adopted" Jesus he was legally assigned the lineage of Abraham and David. But the "adoption" theory is also flawed and erroneous. In fact, it is rather absurd, because while an adopted child can certainly carry on the family name and have material inheritance rights, an actual "blood line" or genealogy is passed on only by blood and genes.

Besides that, there is much more evidence confirming Jesus' actual parentage. For example, consider the statements made by those who knew. The earlier gospel writers, such as Paul, Mark and John, make no mention of the virgin birth at all. In fact, John seems to have totally unaware of the idea of a virgin birth, because in John 1:45 he refers to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph," and John 6:42 repeats the phrase: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

Of course, the biggest reason that most Christians regard the virgin birth story as reality is because of what was written in the later book of Matthew - that it was to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son called Immanuel." There is even a corroborating phrase tacked on in the book of Matthew that says an angel had come to the "virgin" Mary and said she would miraculously bear the son of God, to be called Jesus.

However, as you will see, the reference in the book of Matthew to Isaiah 7:14 about Immanuel is not accurate or appropriate, so it was either not actually written by its original author but was added later, or the author of those words now in the book of Matthew was simply in error about that prophecy of Isaiah.

The truth is actually plain to see for those who are willing to see. You can read it for yourself, and you will see the seventh chapter of Isaiah that mentions Immanuel is actually about a dispute over land and leadership. It took place during the lifetime of those involved, and during the time Isaiah wrote about it. In fact, reasonable, brave Christian scholars have pointed out that before the child Immanuel in the book of Isaiah is old enough to discern for himself what was good and what was not (Isaiah 7:16), the Assyrians would conquer the lands of Aram and Israel, which they did in 733-732 B.C., only a year or two after the prophecy was given, and 733 years before Jesus was even born. So, the actual child named Immanuel lived and died hundreds of years before the time of Jesus.

Furthermore, Isaiah 7:14, which the author of the current book of Matthew used to claim Jesus was born of a "virgin" to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy, does not even speak of a virgin. The Hebrew word "almah" in the book of Isaiah was erroneously translated as "virgin" in the English version of the Bible, but it is more accurately translated simply as "young woman." And, while some Christians rationalize that the word almah could also mean virgin, they ignore the fact that there is a Hebrew word that actually does mean "virgin." It is "bethulah," and in the book of Isaiah it appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5), so the author was well aware of the word for virgin and yet purposely did not use it in Isaiah 7:14.

Additionally, the notion that Jesus' family believed he was immaculately conceived in the womb of a virgin and born as a divine being contradicts other gospel passages as well. For example, John 7:5 states: "For even his brothers did not believe in him." And Mark 3:21 states that: "Upon hearing of it, his family went out to seize him, for they said, he is beside himself." But, Christian tradition denies that Jesus' family thought that he was "beside himself" or delusional, even though they may have because of some of the things he said. In fact, certain modern Christian Bible editions replace the word "they" in Mark 3:21 with the word "people" or "friends," even though the word "they" was apparently in the original text and referred to his family.

I think Jesus' mother Mary may have been the only member of his family that did believe Jesus was the Moshiach-Christ, and she may have come to believe that only during the last year of his life. I think that is one of the reasons why Jesus said that "a prophet is not recognized or honored in his own house or country."

Moreover, Jesus clearly said God is "our father," and in many ways he made it clear that we are all children of God. Therefore, he himself certainly would not have claimed that he was "the only begotten son of God," as is claimed by the doctrine of preeminence created by men. And he certainly did not say he was God "Himself." In fact, he said God "is greater than I," and "only God is good and worthy of worship," and that he was not.

All these things point to the truth that the "virgin birth" story is actually a myth, and it's easy to see why it was created. After all, even if it was in the original gospels, they were written some 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus, and it was during a time of great change and uncertainty. The Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews and Christians throughout the Roman Empire. Moreover, during all those years and decades the stories about Jesus were told by word of mouth only, before the original Christian gospels were written. This would have given the author of the virgin birth story opportunity to come into contact with the many of the existing mythical stories of virgin births from other cultures (and there were many, as is explained in the Real Prophecy Unveiled book series).

For instance, an ancient Persian mythical tradition held that the sun god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25. In ancient Persia, which is now Iran, Mithra was the protector god of their society until the Zoroastrian reformation. And there were many other myths that were well known in the Mid-East during the time of the early Christians, and they obviously borrowed from them (asI discussed this in my third book). And there was ample opportunity and reason for the gospel writers (or later revisionists) to enhance and embellish the story of Jesus to make it more unique and special.

But, whether the virgin birth story was really written by the original author of the book of Matthew or added later by revisionists, it was most likely inserted into the story because it greatly enhanced and elevated the status of the Christ Jesus and Christianity as an organized religion. In fact, it was used to establish the doctrine of preeminence and superiority, and it is very apparent that it was used to justify "Christian" leaders who had worldly, imperial ambitions and designs.

Common sense certainly tells us that Jesus was not born of a "virgin," and the biblical facts and evidence confirm it. And there are other claims about Jesus made in the Christian gospels as we now know them that are incorrect. I've shown you the erroneous referrals in the book of Matthew to Isaiah 42:1-2 (about the servant of God not rising up or speaking in the streets), and to Isaiah 7:14 (about the child Immanuel), and they are certainly not the only erroneous claims made in the gospels about Jesus. There are many, as I've explained in the books.

When you see and consider all the facts and evidence, it is very apparent that the Christian gospel writers (or later revisionists) went to great lengths to try to prove that Jesus fulfilled certain Jewish prophecies, even when he did not. They probably meant well, but the result was an erroneous man-made doctrine of preeminence and superiority that has had, and still has, a divisive and terrible impact on the world. It produced a dark side to Christianity, as opposed to the light side which teaches love, peace, humility, tolerance, forgiveness, and pacifism. The dark side created by the misleading doctrines of men can lead to arrogance, pride, intolerance, condemnation, and aggressive militancy and imperialism. In fact, it has, for the last sixteen centuries.

The problem is that misguided Christians do not understand why Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) Nor do they understand why it is written that "the Word was made flesh" in the Christ Jesus. (John 1:1-14) For the primordial "Word," which was in the beginning, which was with God and is God, is made flesh in all of us. And we can realize that, which is why Jesus said when the Spirit of truth comes to you, you shall know that the Christ is in you, you are in Christ, and the Christ and you are in God. For we are One in the omnipresent Spirit of God.

Misguided Christians also do not understood that the authors or later copiers or translators who wrote that the Christ Jesus was "Lord and Savior" ( in II Peter 3:18, II Peter 1:1, John 4:42, Titus 1:4, and Luke 2:11) misrepresented Jesus and ignored Old Testament scriptures which prove otherwise, stating very clearly that only certain chosen witnesses and servants of God fulfill prophecy, that only God is the Savior and Holy One, and that God is not a mortal, not a man, nor a son of man.

They also do not understand why Jesus said: "Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58) For Jesus realized he was one with the Ancient One and the primordial Word, which was in the beginning with God. And they do not recognize how and where Jesus said we could all realize that.

But, please understand that I point out these truths not to denigrate the Christ Jesus. Not at all. In fact, it is my mission to glorify Jesus for what he was, a christed, spiritually anointed son of man, the Sacrificial Lamb of God, and the Avatar for the passing age, not an idol exalted by and for idol worshipers. After all, Jesus said he must "go away and be seen no more," and he said "the Spirit of truth shall come to issue judgment, guide you unto all truth, show you things to come, and glorify me."

I serve the Spirit of truth, and glorify the Christ Jesus for what he truly was. God bless him, and God bless all who can recognize the truth when they see it.

© 2002 - 2008 Joseph J. Adamson