The Virgin Birth of Jesus: Is it a Reasonable Belief? ( Part I )

Christians believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. The two gospels explicitly proclaiming the virgin birth of Jesus is Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-45. The most succinct statement of the Christian confession is the Apostle’s Creed, which is the oldest version of Christian confession. The Apostle's Creed is as follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting. (see article by James Orr, “The Apostle’s Creed,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 1, at www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html )

The Apostle’s Creed originates in apostolic times and was a baptismal formula. As such, new followers of Christ confessed this creed to confirm their faith in the essential message of the gospels and of the church. The Apostle’s Creed is the foundation of all other confessions including the Nicene, Chalcedon, Westminster, and other creeds. It is venerated by the Roman Catholic Church and by most Protestant Churches.

The clause of importance here is “Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.” Liberal scholars and their followers deny the possibility of the virgin birth. Because other ancient religions claimed their saviors were virgin born or otherwise supernaturally born, liberals believe the early church adopted the myth probably to make the gospel more attractive to superstitious ancient people. This skeptical view might be true. However, what is often behind liberal skepticism is their outright rejection of the supernatural. Liberals tend to deny all of the miracles mentioned in the Bible, not just the virgin birth. The Christian confession would be meaningless if the supernatural was not an experienced reality. As the Apostle Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) The faith was not an exercise in philosophy or superstition to allay fear of death. Faith is (was) based on seeing, hearing, feeling the resurrection of Jesus and of others. Therefore, healing and resurrection from the dead was an experienced reality during the apostolic era that continued well beyond the apostles’ witness of Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly ascent. In fact, miraculous healings and resurrections continue in our own time.

The virgin birth of Jesus cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved either. An appropriate question requiring a logical answer is whether it is reasonable to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Merely dismissing the possibility because one does not believe in miracles or the supernatural is as meaningless as blindly confessing the virgin birth is true. To answer the question, one must consider whether any historical evidence exists that would support or refute the possibility of virgin birth. Is there any scientific evidence for virgin birth? If so, does the evidence prove the virgin birth? In addition, a search for evidence to support the reasonableness of Jesus’ virgin birth must consider any rational argument that might exist.

Skeptics readily supply a logical argument. However, from the outset, the argument by David Hume against testimonials for miracles must be discarded because medical testing confirms healing miracles based on religious faith do occur. We can also eliminate arguments against resurrection because many have occurred. More importantly, they are being medically and empirical verified. Consequently, by eliminating those two arguments that confirm the reality of God and the supernatural, much time will be saved in order to focus on the primary argument: is belief in the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?

In a future posting, I will begin to present an answer. Until then, a few observations from my past studies may be instructive. A number of years ago, I began searching for proof of the virgin birth of Jesus. I reviewed medical and scientific research on oocytology, regenerative medicine, genetics, reproductive behavior of animals and insects, neurology, paranormal science, and the like. Based on my less than fallible memory, I discovered research claiming virgin births do occur in nature. Men can have female type (XX) chromosomes of the 23rd pair just as women can have male type (xy) 23rd chromosomes. Women have a biological residue of male hormones that could be used in imprinting the genetic material of an egg. Imprinting is a hormonal process by which certain genes are turned on and off during various stages of cell development. These were some of my findings.

When considering people with terminal cancer and 6 month to live, my theory about people who have been miraculously healed because of religious faith is this: God answered their faith and prayers for deliverance. They were healed because the master geneticist forced aberrant cells to conform to His plan. The genetic information of cancer cells was changed to conform to normal cells. God spoke His word so that from quantum particles to individual genes all material aligned with God’s word. As it were, the blueprint of cancer cells was replaced by the blueprint of normal cells.

That is one reasonable possibility. It also gives an idea how I will approach my answer to the question: is the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?

Life Issues and Creator Rights

Modern debate about abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia (remember, Terri Schiavo?) are issues concerning life. They encompass the life of a mother, the life of a child, the beginning of life at its most rudimentary biological stages, and the life of the disabled . Many believe medical practitioners are doing a good service to people troubled, threatened, or suffering. They view the issues as helping preserve a life that already is. When suffering becomes unbearable, they see the right to die as a merciful act. As long as the person has expressed their will, the right to die with dignity should be considered a good thing.

Opponents approach the same issues from the right to life and from the perspective of future consequences. The potential consequences are not merely about life after death or heaven and hell. Right-to-life advocates also consider the consequences for society in general. They see the immense value of life being diminished because of abortions that are often not real life threatening situations. The demand for perpetual creation and use of embryonic stem cells for potential cures while discounting, if not ignoring, the tremendous potential of other pluripotent stem cell sources further degrades regard for human life. Then, right-to-life advocates rightly regard these issues in light of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life.
No such right is guaranteed for death. The obvious reason is that death is a human certainty, but abuses of individual lives have been many throughout human history.

The biblical commandment "thou shall not kill" may used by advocates of life, but one party whose valid concern has not yet been heard. This party has more right to be heard than all other parties involved in the debate. That party is the Creator.

For Americans, the Creator's perspective is legally valid. As the Declaration states, it was the Creator who imbued nature with the right to life. Because life is not the work of science, government, or individuals, a long pause is necessary to consider what right does any one have to determine who lives or who does not. Abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia are all arbitrary determinations of who lives and who does not. Whether at the point of conception, at the blastocyte, embryonic, fetus, childhood, youth, adult, or elderly stage is all one continuum of human development. The Creator made it human life that way. Because human have learned how life develops does not give anyone a right to end life without just cause; otherwise, it must be considered murder in the sight of the Creator.

"Thou shall not kill" is a universal law evident in almost all cultures and societies. It means not to kill without a just cause. . Self-defense is a legitimate reason. The same is true of government executing a murder; it is a defense of a citizenry. Therefore, killing a human life at any stage without a just cause is murder.

It is also robbery. Death robs others of beneficial relations. Families, friends, associates, society, and even God are parties rob of companionship, productive activity, economic benefits, and other useful purposes when a life ends.

More important are the consequences resulting from killing and dying. If a person murders another and both are not morally right with God, they will both suffer eternal spiritual consequences. Heaven and hell are places where life and death continues. Because life and death are both relational states of being, all wrongful separations are forms of death including divorce. Ultimately, the punishment of hell is the eternal separation or alienation from God and loved ones. Heaven is the opposite. It is the continuation of beneficial relationships with God, loved ones, and others.

In the final analysis, abortion may be a necessary evil when actual life-and-death circumstances exist. Stem cell research should be encouraged and funded, but embryonic stem cells should be the very last source. It is hard to justify using live embryos when other types of stem cells are available and have resulted in actual cures not potential ones. In light of eternal justice in the Creator's world, the argument of sacrificing an unformed life for the potential end to suffering of others is not justifiable. It is not justifiable because a life sacrificed for others has already occurred. Jesus died so that human can have eternal life. His sacrifice encompasses realized promises of abundance and healing. Jesus is the means to divine healing. This is another reason why euthanasia is not justifiable in most cases. Because God is more than able to end a life suffering the pain and misery of disease, only euthanasia--if it can be called that--of non-responsive patients on life support could possibly be justified.

The issue comes down to whether society will continue on the path of rejecting God and defying the natural order. The ultimate decision is whether it is worth the risk of facing the judgment of God and an eternity of alienation and suffering.

What deniers cannot prove is that no God exists nor that an afterlife does not await all people. Science cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. Medical science has provided corroborating evidence of God's existence evidenced by healing of terminal illnesses and a great many testimonies to medical examiners of experiences of life while people were clinically dead.