I am convinced that the virgin birth story is a fraud and a forgery and may even have been inspired by a myth. I will further on down I will show why I believe so. It’s not that I don’t believe that God could have done a miracle, All things are possible with God. But did it really happen?

However, I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah God sent to the earth to show his love to the world and teach God’s children how to live right and be happy. He came to deliver men from sin with the power of God. He came to teach the truth that he heard from his Father and to do His will. He came to be the peacemaker (propitiation) and a mediator between God and men.

I believe in the Truth of God that Jesus actually spoke and not the false words that men deceitfully put into his mouth to make his words fit the doctrines of their religion. However, I’m not at all convinced that everything that Jesus and the the apostles are quoted to have said was actually said.

There is too much evidence that much of the Gospels and the epistles has been distorted, added to, and subtracted from. There is so much evidence of obvious contradictions and discrepancies, mistranslations, misinterpretations and outright forgeries.

We have no original manuscripts to compare the translations to and all we really have are copies of copies of copies of translations. Most of the original writings were either lost, hidden or destroyed. This was most probably was done on purpose to keep others from comparing the forgeries to the original manuscripts of the real authors and thus discovering the truth about their perfidity.

For the majority of Christian churches the dogma of the virgin birth is absolutely essencial since this doctrine is based on the assumption that it is the virgin birth is one of the things that “proves” that Jesus Christ was God. Denying the virgin birth is to them like denying Christ’s diety and the inerrancy of the bible. Denying the virgin birth is like denying that Jesus is God, which according to some religions can cause one to lose one’s salvation!

“The virgin birth is an underlying assumption of everything the Bible says about Jesus. To throw out the virgin birth is to reject Christ’s deity, the accuracy and authority of Scripture, and a host of other related doctrines that are the heart of the Christian faith. No issue is more important than the virgin birth to our understanding of who Jesus is. If we deny Jesus is God, we have denied the very essence of Christianity.” John F. MacArthur, Jr.

The truth is that it’s the virgin birth that makes Christianity unique from all other religions and gives them the upperhand so-to-speak. It was one of the major doctrine that gave the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church the power to gain and maintain control of and manipulate a great part of the world for hundereds of years. It is believed that its purpose was to make Christianity more competitive with contemporary Pagan religions of the region whose religions had many myths of virgin births. If it hadn’t been for the dogma of the virgin birth Christianity may not have even survived.

The myth of the virgin birth is what enables Christianity to be the “only one true religion” and all the others false. It is what makes salvation exclusive to only the members and believers in Christianity. This infers that God hates the rest of the world and will send to hell to be tortured for an eternity if they haven’t been fortunate enough to believe the “right” way.

This is why I feel it is necessary to expose this huge forgery and set all of God’s people free from the strangle-hold of the church’s false doctrines. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.

If there is no virgin birth, then Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not God then there is no trinity. If there is no trinity then the whole foundation of the Christian religion is based on falsehood, pretense and deceit. I’m convinced that it is.

In a nutshell, here are the reasons I believe the virgin birth is a forgery:

• If Joseph were not the biological father of Jesus he could not be the messiah.
• There is no example in the bible where a woman ascended to the throne of David, so Jesus’ kingship could not have come through her lineage.
• Jesus had to be of the lineage of Joseph to be of the tribe of Judah. Only Jewishness is inherited through the mother.
• Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.
• One gospel not included in canonized bible shows Joseph as biological father of Jesus.
• The earliest manuscripts circulating in the second century did not contain the story of the virgin birth.
• The gospel of the Hebrews, written by Matthew in Aramaic in the first century, the only gospel that the early Christians used did not contain the story of the virgin birth.
• Paul had never heard of the virgin birth since he never mentions it one time and declares that Jesus was of the seed of David according to the “flesh”. None of the other apostles knew of the virgin either.
• Virgin birth absent from early manuscripts.
• Dogma of the Word (or Logos) made Flesh — probably taken from mythology.
• Mark oldest gospel begins with baptism and ends with the crucifixion – no mention of virgin birth.
• Neither Gospel of John nor Gospel of Mark have no mention of the virgin birth.
• Mary, according to the church was a “perpetual virgin”, but the bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.
• The mother in Isaiah 7:14 was a “young woman” not a virgin (Mat 1:23) — the translation was wrong.
• The Messiah’s was not in fact named “Emmanuel” or even Jesus for that matter, as the prophecy states in Isaiah 7:14, but “Yeshua“;

The Gospel of the Nazirenes, believed to be compiled by the Jesus’ 12 disciples, originally written in Aramaic and translated directly into English, preserved without any corruption of the Roman Orthodox church, has the story of the birth of Jesus in these words:

Joseph had Intimate Relations with Mary
And in the same day the angel Gabriel appeared unto Joseph in a dream and said unto him, Hail, Joseph, thou that art highly favoured, for the Fatherhood of God is with thee. Blessed art thou among men and blessed be the fruit of thy loins.

And as Joseph thought upon these words he was troubled, and the angel of the Lord said unto him, Fear not, Joseph, thou Son of David, for thou hast found favor with God, and behold thou shalt beget a child [not the "Holy Spirit"], and thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel had bidden him, and went in unto Mary [had intimate relations], his espoused bride, and she conceived in her womb the Holy One.

(Gospel of the Nazarenes 1:9,10,12)

The Gospel of the Hebrews which was written in Aramaic by Matthew one of the original of the twelve disciples, was the only Gospel that was used by the Jewish Christians, that is the Nazarenes (Jesus’s disciples, family and followers), the Ebionites and the Christians in Syria.  This Gospel, in the first century, was considered to be the only authentic Gospel and the later cannonized Gospels authored and translated by “correctors” of the Roman church were rejected by these early Jewish Christians as being corrupted.

The Actual Gospel of the Hebrews begins as follows:

“In the days of King Herod of Judea, a certain man named John came baptizing with a baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. He was said to be of the family of Aaron the priest, son of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and all went out to him.”

There is no genealogy nor virgin birth story in their Gospel.

The Son of Joseph

Further, Mary herself calls Jesus the son of Joseph:

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (Luk 2:48)

Philip calls him the Son of Joseph:

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph (Joh 1:45 )

If Joseph were not the biological father of Jesus he could not be the messiah

Since the Messiah had to be a descendant of the house of David, Joseph would have had to be the biological father of Jesus since the tribal lineage comes through the father and not through the mother. Some have suggested the geneology in the Gospel of Luke was Mary’s which they claim would make Jesus a descendant of David, but this is merely speculation, there is no way to prove this.

Nevertheless, Jesus only got his Jewishness from his mother. Tribal affiliation passed only from the biological father according to the Hebrew scriptures — never the mother, and never an adopted father. It had to be a blood line through the father. Therefore, Joseph had to be his biological father and Mary was not a virgin, since Jesus was the Messiah.

When your days are fulfilled, and you shall lie with your forefathers, then I will raise up your seed that shall issue from your body [his semen] after you, and I will establish his kingdom.

[The prophecy says the messiah will be a physical heir from the semen of King David's body. Joseph was a son of David, which meant a physical descendant.]

He shall build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; [Jesus always referred to God as Father] so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with afflictions of human beings.

And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:12-16)

This promise to king David was fulfilled in Jesus:

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

So if Jesus was the Messiah he couldn’t have been born of a virgin since his father had to be of the lineage of David after the flesh and under the law to fulfill the law.
If Mary was a virgin Jesus couldn’t have been the Messiah since if he wouldn’t be a physical descendent of the House of David.

The lineage of kingship is always passed to a son through the father according to Jewish law and never through the mother. What’s more nowhere in the old testament is there an example of a woman ascending to the throne of Israel.

1Ch 17:11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.

The claim king David’s to throne is a tribal blood-right heritage which could only be passed to Jesus though Joseph and not merely adoption. And it had to be the first-born male or eldest living male, which Jesus was.

So even though one could prove that the genealogy in Luke belongs to Mary, which is not possible, it wouldn’t matter anyway since Jesus could only get his Jewishness through his mother and not the inheritance of the throne of David.

However, we can prove that Mary was the cousin of Elisabeth who was the wife of Zacharias who were therefore descendants of the Levites which is where Jesus got his Jewish heritage. However, it is only conjecture that the genealogy in Luke was Mary’s since there is no scriptural evidence of this. However it does say in Luke: “the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat….”

In any case Joseph had to be the biological father of Jesus in order for him to be the rightful heir to the throne of David to fulfill the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

The earliest manuscripts circulating in the second century did not contain the story of the virgin birth.

In Matthew’s Gospel that the Ebionites used, called the Gospel of the Hebrews, there was no story of a Virgin Birth. Jesus became one (in the sense of unity) with God at his baptism (Wikipedia, Gospel of the Hebrews). The correct translation is not the only begotten son of God, but the first begotten Son of God. This makes Jesus the first of many begotten sons, which takes care of a huge contradiction the mistranslation created. The Gospel of the Hebrews was the only gospel the early Jewish Christians and they rejected the idea of the virgin birth as a fraud.

The oldest gospel, Mark has no mention of the virgin birth. It begins with the story of John the Baptist and ends with the resurection.

The gospel of John also contains nothing about the virgin birth. On the contrary, it calls Jesus the son of Joseph:

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph (Joh 1:45)

Greek and Syriac manuscripts have no story of the virgin birth but the geneologies are of Joseph being the father of Jesus. In a Syriac text from which Matthew was copied from states:

And Joseph begat Jesus, the one called Christ.

The original texts from which Matthew was copied had no story of the virgin birth. This story only emerged sometime in the second century. There were versions of the gospel of Matthew circulating at that time without the virgin birth story as we are told by one of the church fathers from history.

The two geneologies both point to the fact that Joseph was the biological father

One of the correctors of the gospel of Luke (not the disciple) begins the geneology of Joseph telling us that it was “supposed” that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Now this is a curious thing to do seeing that the writer of this gospel tells us of the virgin birth then lists the geneology of Joseph.

Furthermore, if Joseph wasn’t Jesus’s biological father, then why does the author of the so-called gospel of Matthew go to all the trouble to show that Joseph was of the lineage of David?

And since the tribal affiliation comes only through the father and not through the mother, then why does the writer of the gospel of Luke list Mary’s genealogy? There is no reason to do this since proving she is a descendent of the house of David doesn’t prove Jesus’s Messiahship. However, it does indicate that the genealogy was of Joseph and not Mary.

The  genealogy in Luke:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph… [all the lineage] …which was the son of David (Luk 3:23, 31)

The parentesis means that these words weren’t in the original text, it is a notation by a scribe. Also note that though it is claimed that this is Mary’s genealogy, there is no proof for this. What’s more, the scripture shows that it is the genealogy of Joseph not Mary. The only thing we can prove is that Mary was of the lineage of Levi, being the cousin of Elisabeth.

Joseph’s geneology:

And Jesse begat David the king… [all the lineage] …And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Mat 1:6, 16)

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) (Luk 2:4)

If Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus then why does the author go to all the trouble of proving that he was of the lineage of David? And why is Jesus referred to as the “son of David” seventeen times in the New Testament? And why does Jesus refer to himself as the son of man over eighty times if he wasn’t really the son of a man? When Jesus repeated things many times it was for emphasis. It sounds like he was trying to say something very important. It seemed like he knew that after his departure they would try to make a god out of him.

Nothing in Paul’s writings speak of the virgin birth

Paul was completely unaware of the story of the virgin birth since there is not one mention of it in his epistles.

If he knew Jesus was born of a virgin he wouldn’t have used the word “woman”, he would have used the word virgin or at least some other expression to show that the birth was miraculous. He had never even heard of the virgin birth. That story was invented long after Paul was dead and gone. Incredibly, this is a part that the Roman church didn’t think of inserting falsehoods or corrupting as they did other parts of his writings.

From his writings we see that he thought that the birth of Jesus was natural and conventional. In Galations he writes:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law. (Gal 4:4)

There is nothing in the law about the Holy Spirit impregnating a woman, virgin or otherwise.

In another reference to the birth of Jesus Paul writes:

…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh [or, another translation] who was descended from David according to the flesh… (Rom 1:3)

Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel (2Ti 2:8)

Paul uses the expression “the seed of David”, which shows that he believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph since the seed refers to a man’s semen. And he also says “according to the flesh” which indicates that it was a normal conception and not some supernatural miracle of the Holy Ghost. If Joseph weren’t Jesus’s father he couldn’t have been descended from physical seed of David, since the seed is from the father not the mother. Jesus was a “flesh” descendant of David — son of David and son of Joseph.

Probably the most convincing scripture, from the bible itself, tells us that Jesus the Messiah would be a flesh descendant of the throne of David, not merely a spiritual one. Therefore, Joseph had to have been the biological father of Jesus and not the Holy Ghost.

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Besides Paul’s writings, none of the other epistles, Peter, James, John and Jude, mention the virgin birth either.  It seems that a doctrine so central to Christianity as the virgin birth would be written in the epistles, but not a word. This tells me that neither Paul nor any of the apostles who knew Jesus personally knew anything about Jesus being born of a virgin. The reason: it never happened!

Isaiah 7:14 prophesies a “young woman” NOT a virgin

Supposing there was an original manuscript that told the story of the birth of Jesus, of which there is a slight possibility. But there are only two gospels in the bible that tell the story of the virgin birth. These two stories however similar have many striking differences considering they were both copied from the same original manuscript. However, only one contains the reference to the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

There are two basic problems with this though. First, the translation “ha’almah” for virgin is incorrect. It should have been translated “young woman”. Second, Joseph and Mary did not name their son Emmanuel, but Yeshuah or Joshua as it is translated in English after Joshua the son of Nun brother of Moses, which means salvation. He wasn’t even called Jesus, but that is another huge translational blunder and is outside the scope of this article.

As it turns out in the old testament prophecy, the woman is not a virgin since she is the wife of the prophet (or at least the woman he got pregnant):

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

This is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. I assume that the prophetess was his wife, but whether or not she actually was has no bearing on this. The fact is that the Prophet “went in unto the prophetess”, or in otherwords, had sexual relations with her. Therefore she was not a virgin.

So whether she was a virgin or not before makes no difference, the fact is that she wasn’t a virgin when she conceived. What’s more is that the incorrect translation for the word “virgin” (ha’almah) of Isaiah 7:14 that was used was a “young woman”. This would only be more evidence to the fact that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived.

If indeed Mary was a virgin then this creates a problem for the prophecy that was supposedly fulfilled twice as is claimed, then who was the first virgin to conceive a son? The only fulfillment of this prophecy could be Isaiah 8:4, but here the woman is definitely not a virgin.

If “ha’almah” can only mean virgin, this presents still another problem, Mary wasn’t the first nor only virgin to give birth! This contradicts the doctrine of Roman Church.

The Messiah was called Jesus, not Emmanuel.

The fact that the Mahershalalhashbaz was not named “Emmanuel” coincides perfectly with the fact that Jesus wasn’t named “Emmanuel” either. In the original prophecy the son that was born to the prophetess was not called Emmanuel, but “Mahershalalhashbaz”. It’s obvious this prophecy was fulfilled in him since the whole prophecy in detail was fulfilled around him.

So the prophecy itself exposes the fact that the men who were hired by the Roman church corrupted the story of the birth of Jesus (if in fact it was ever originally written) and altered it to read that Jesus was born of a virgin to match the doctrines that the church had established. However, this created a contradiction in that Jesus could not be the Messiah if he were born of a virgin since he had to be a flesh and blood descendant of the throne of David to be the Messiah.

Jesus prophesied:

“After my departure there will arise the ignorant and the crafty, and many things will they ascribe unto Me that I never spake, and many things which I did speak will they withhold, but the day will come when the clouds shall be rolled away, and the Sun of Righteousness shall shine forth with healing in his wings.”