THE VIRGIN BIRTH – A DEFINITION
ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR MORE WITNESSES.
IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR THE VIRGIN BIRTH?
The Isaiah 7 Prophecy – Is This a Precedent?
The concept of the “virgin birth” is not just an ancillary concept in Christianity; rather, it is basic to the entire religion. The reason is that if there was nothing “divine” about Jesus’ birth, if he was born from the union of a man and a woman, then he could not have been “divine.” If Jesus was not divine, then he would have to accomplish the things that the Bible tells us is necessary to be recognized as the Messiah – which he did not.
It should be noted that the use of New
Testament references in this article does not denote any belief in New Testament
doctrine.
Having been born of the virgin Mary, Jesus was human offspring. Having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and overshadowed by the power of the Most High, Jesus was holy Offspring—the sinless Son of G-d. Therefore, the doctrine of the virgin birth impacts one’s view of the sinlessness of Christ. When Mary conceived, she passed on her human nature to the anthropic person, but she was prevented by the Holy Spirit from transmitting a sin nature. The doctrine of the virgin birth is also closely tied with our own salvation. If Jesus had been tainted with sin, then He could not have been our sufficient Sacrifice. On the other hand, if Jesus had not been born of Mary, and so had not been the Man, Christ Jesus, then He could not have died, nor could He have been a suitable sacrificial substitute as a Man for men. Christ became human in a miraculous way. The provision of salvation, therefore, is all of G-d and none of man. (The Virgin Birth and the Sinlessness of Christ, by John Hartog III, Th.D. Faith Baptist Theological College. USA)
The above quote, however, contradicts
what Paul says in Hebrews. 5:9:
“…and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal
salvation for all who obey him.” And in Hebrews 4:15 -5:2, “For
we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses,
but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
It cannot be shown by the New Testament that Jesus was sinless due to his being divine. Rather, the example in the above quote claims that Jesus was considered by his followers sinless because he did not sin. It does not say that he was born “sin proof.” Jesus is quoted (John 12:50) as having said, “I know that His command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.” In other words, he was not giving any new commands nor claiming to be in any way equal to G-d. He was saying that everything he taught was coming from G-d. He was a teacher of the ways of G-d.
G-d can miraculously make a virgin pregnant; G-d can do anything. It has even been known to happen in the animal world – something akin to natural cloning. But does a virgin birth make Jesus more of a Messiah, or less? Did he not, according to Christianity, exist before the foundation of the world and already have a divine soul?
Does it matter? Did Mary need to conceive him without a husband? Did this make Jesus more spiritual? Why Mary and not Joseph? Was Joseph less G-dly than she? Only if you believe in the Catholic dogma of the “Immaculate Conception,” does the Virgin Birth seem necessary; that is, only if you believe that Mary was sinless herself. “Divine flesh” by definition cannot die. Since Jesus died, he obviously was not divine flesh. So he supposedly had a divine soul. Where would Jesus have gotten a soul that was any different than that given to everyone else? Are we not all made in G-d’s image and given divine souls?
The Torah states that a matter is established by the testimony of two or more witnesses. It is written in Deut. 19:15, “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Even the New Testament says (Matt. 18:16), “Every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” So we can accept the things that have witnesses. But neither Jesus himself, nor Paul, nor James, nor Peter make any reference to a virgin birth. If such an occurrence was known to them, they would have mentioned it. Therefore, we can assume that the accounts in Matthew and Luke were added later by the Christian translators.
In fact, Paul was apparently unaware of the Virgin Birth. He does not mention the “virgin birth” anywhere in his writings. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known of special conditions concerning Jesus’ birth that he would have mentioned them in one of his letters, particularly when he speaks at length about Jesus being the “supernal High Priest.” In fact, the opposite appears to be true: Paul seems to have thought that the birth was natural and conventional.
Between 49 and 55 CE, Paul recorded the first known reference to the birth of Jesus. In Galatians 4:4, he writes: “But when the time had fully come (of her pregnancy), G-d sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law.” If he had been aware of a “virgin birth,” he would have undoubtedly replaced “woman” with “virgin”, or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written an estimated (by some) 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus’ birth.
In about 57 CE, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus’ birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes:
"I Paul, a servant of Jesus the Messiah, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of G-d…concerning his Son Jesus the Messiah our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
There’s no other way to say it - “seed” means “sperm” -- from a man. The phrase “of the seed of David” strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, who was of the tribe of David. The phrase “according to the flesh” implies a natural, normal conception and birth. Matthew also traces Jesus’ genealogy from David to Joseph
John’s Gospel does not mention the virgin birth. Certainly John, as a kabbalist, would have done so, found some way to spiritualize his birth, being the ‘beloved’ disciple who knew so much about his Master. John must have been aware of the “virgin birth” belief, since the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. But John seems to have rejected it as being a false teaching. In John 1:45 he refers to Jesus specifically as “the son of Joseph.” John 6:42 repeats the phrase: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?”
The seed of the woman – Israel – is passed down through the Patriarchs and forefathers.
(Gen 46: 6,7) And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gained in the land of Canaan, and came to Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him; His sons, and his grandsons with him, his daughters, and his sons’ daughters, and all his seed brought he with him to Egypt.
(Rom. 9:5) Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is G-d over all, forever praised! Amen.
The ‘seed’ are the descendants of the male:
(Gal. 3:16) The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Messiah.
Jesus is to be a natural descendant of Abraham:
(Rom. 1:3) Concerning his Son Jesus the Messiah our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
John seems to be aware of the Virgin Birth teaching. He responds by saying:
(1John 4:2) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of G-d: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from G-d.”
(2John 1:7) Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus the Messiah as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the anti-Messiah.
(2Tim. 2:8) Remember that Jesus the Messiah of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel. He is to be from the House of David.
(Acts 13:23) Of this man’s [David’s] seed has G-d according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus.
(John 1:45) 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.
(Matthew 1:1) The Book of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.”
(Acts 2:30) Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G-d had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Anointed One to sit on his throne.”
(Romans 1:3-5). Concerning his son who was born in the flesh of the seed of the House of David, and who came to be known as the Son of G-d with power and with the Holy Spirit, because he rose from the dead, and he is Jesus the Messiah our Master.”
(1 Chronicles 17:11-14) [referring to the Messiah] And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.
This quote from 1 Chronicles is talking about The Anointed One, The Messiah. It shows that he will come from the line of David, come from David's seed, according to the flesh, and that he will build his Father's house (the Holy Temple).
Acts 2:30 confirms 1 Chronicles 17 in saying: "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that G-d had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Anointed One to sit on his throne."
It is quite clear that Jesus was born of the seed of Joseph. Women do not have seed. The Messiah would come from the fruit of David's body, according to the flesh.
Messiah
is to be of the line of Judah
(Gen. 49:10) “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s
staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the
obedience of the nations is his.”
And
from the House of David
(Jeremiah 23:5,6) "'The days are coming,' declares the L-rd, 'when
I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land. In his day Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called:
The L-rd Our Righteousness.'"
But
Miriam was of the tribe of Levi
Even if there ever had been a tradition
of transmittal of tribal lineage via the mother, which there never had
been, Joseph must have been the father in order for Jesus to be
from the correct tribe (Judah, in which is the house of David). The mother
only determines
‘Jewishness,’ and we already know that about Jesus. Furthermore,
as already stated, G-d told David that the Messiah would come from the
seed of his sons. Therefore, Messiah must have a human father, otherwise
he has no ancestry.
Tribal
ancestry and inheritance is patrilineal
For example: In Exodus 6, Aaron, from the tribe of Levi, married Elisheva,
a Judahite. Although intermarriage between tribes was discouraged, it did
happen. However, Aaron’s children were raised Levites, not
Judahites. The tribal lineage always comes from the father’s side.
Mary was a Levite who married a Judahite from the house of King David.
Therefore, her children would receive the inheritance of Judah, of her
husband. Otherwise, Jesus would have been considered a “Levitical
Priest.” But according to the New Testament, his “priesthood” is
not Levitical:
(Hebrews. 6:20) ...where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
(Hebrews. 7:11) If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come — one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
Why
Give Joseph’s Genealogy?
Matthew 1:16 & Luke 3:23-38. The “virgin birth” appears
in Luke and Matthew, written years after the supposed event, to prove Jesus’
divinity. The birth stories in these two gospels come from different sources
and differ widely but both contradict their central thesis that Jesus’ mother
was a virgin by giving a genealogy to show that Joseph was descended from
David, an irrelevancy if Joseph had not impregnated his wife. The original
idea of the writers of the New Testament was obviously to trace Jesus’ lineage through
Joseph to David to fulfill messianic prophecy. Then the idea of making
Jesus divine through a “virgin birth” arose and was tacked
on, spoiling the object of the genealogy.
(Luke 1:26-35) Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by G-d to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord G-d will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end...”
Up to here, there is no problem except that in order to call Joseph the father would mean perpetuating a lie.
Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of G-d.”
Verse 35 implies that she would conceive in a 'supernatural way'. However, the Angel speaks in a futuristic way: this and this will happen to you. Mary's reply in verse 34 is in the present/ past tense. She said, "How can this be, as I do not know a man?” that is, "I am not having sexual relations with anyone at the moment." But she would soon “know a man,” as she was betrothed to Joseph. Thus, the angel’s statement should not have surprised her, as he said, “you will [future] conceive”. There is nothing unusual about a woman soon to be married having a son in the near future, so her response is inappropriate. Up to this point the angel has not said anything about a “virgin birth.” It is very natural for an engaged woman to look forward to children, so why is she surprised that in the future she will conceive? If the angel had said, "You are pregnant", then her reply would have made sense. But he says, "You will be pregnant."
Also, these words the angel spoke to Mary did not come to pass in Jesus’ lifetime, thus they speak of a future event:
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord G-d will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end...’”
According to Matthew 1:19, Joseph’s first thought, because he was a “pious” man, was to “quietly divorce” Mary. That can’t be true. If he were a “pious” man, he would have married her immediately. Divorcing her “quietly” would have been the worst thing he could have done, as he would have had to take her before the Beit Din (Rabbi’s court, literally “house of judgment”) to get a divorce, even though they were “only” betrothed. It is impossible to divorce “quietly.”
The Beit Din would have thoroughly cross-examined the situation. What would have been his reasons for wanting a divorce? Because his betrothed was pregnant with a baby that is not his? Mary would have been considered a harlot, and quite possibly she would have been stoned to death.
Divorcing her quietly is not the Jewish way. However, it is the “Catholic” way, as pregnant women were often hidden away. But this is impossible with the Jewish Community. How does one hide a pregnant girl? Judaism does not allow for these things. Therefore, it makes no sense from a Jewish perspective that Joseph’s “piety” would cause him to “divorce her secretly.”
Another issue is that if G-d would have made her pregnant without first telling His authorities about it, He would have laid upon Mary too great a burden, as she would have given the “impression of sin (pregnant out of wedlock).” Jewish Halacha says we cannot give the appearance of evil: "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thessalonians 5:22).
In keeping with His own Law, G-d would have sent the angel to the correct authorities, as well as to Mary and Joseph, for “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, without revealing his secrets to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).
Another odd passage is in Luke 2:43-50, where twelve year old Jesus cannot be found for three days. When his parents finally find him in the Temple, Mary says to Jesus, "Behold your father and I have been looking for you anxiously." Jesus replies, '"How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" Verse 50 says that Mary and Joseph "did not understand the words which he said to them."
If Mary and Joseph knew that Jesus was conceived by the “seed” of G-d, and that G-d was the Father, then why was Jesus’ statement so strange that they did not understand it?
The Ebionites were Greek-speaking Jewish followers of Jesus, who lived east of the Jordan.
Eusebius: But the heresy of the Ebionites.... asserts that Messiah was born of Joseph and Mary, and supposes him to be a mere man, and insists upon an observance of the Torah too much after the manner of the Jews. (Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter XVII).
If, however, there is for us no alternative but to receive the Jews into the Church, along with the usages prescribed by their law; if, in short, it shall be declared lawful for them to continue in the Churches of Christ what they have been accustomed to practice in the synagogues of Satan, I will tell you my opinion of the matter: they will not become Christians, but they will make us Jews.
Irenaeus: The Ebionites assert that he was begotten by Joseph. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXI, 1) ...Jesus is a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of G-d (a divine Son, or born of a virgin). (On the Flesh of the Messiah, Chapter XIV, 4).
Origen: Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being the Messiah and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law; and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that he was begotten like other human beings. (Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter LXI.)
Christian teaching states that one of the earliest errors was Ebionism. The Ebionites insisted on law -keeping as a way of life. Most denied the deity of Messiah and his virgin birth, teaching that Jesus was the human son of Joseph and Mary.
Can we give credence to the Ebionites? It seems so. According to Dr. James Tabor, one can accurately refer to the Ebionite/Nazarene movement as those earliest, mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and led by James the Just, brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus. The Ebionites reject the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” or "divinity" of Jesus – being the child of a G-d and a mortal, used only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They rejected of the "doctrines and traditions of men,” which they believed had been illegally added to the pure Torah of Moses.
This is odd, because Hebrew Matthew contains the account of the “Virgin Birth.” According to Dr. Tabor, “Shem Tov [version] is not the precise text the Ebionites used. Whatever Hebrew Matthew they used, did not contain chapters 1-2. This information is found in the writings of Jerome and Epiphanius.
Larson in the book ‘Essene’, p 175 writes: “The first two chapters of Matthew and the first three chapters of Luke were added in the second century by Hellenizers who would accept only a divinely born ‘savior-G-d’ like those of the pagan mystery-cults.
Jerome: Letter LXXV. (a.d. 404.) Jerome's answer to Augustine’s Letters XXVIII., XL, and LXXI. Ch 1V:
“To Augustine, My Lord Truly Holy, and Most Blessed Father, Jerome Sends Greeting in Christ. If, however, there is for us no alternative but to receive the Jews (Ebionites) into the Church, along with the usages prescribed by their law; if, in short, it shall be declared lawful for them to continue in the Churches of Christ what they have been accustomed to practice in the synagogues of Satan, I will tell you my opinion of the matter: they will not become Christians, but they will make us Jews.
Justin Martyr on the Ebionites
The new myth of the “Virgin Birth” was not accepted everywhere. Nazarenes and Ebionites regarded it as a pagan intrusion into their religion. In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr concedes that some of his co-religionists reject the divine fathering and Virgin Birth of Jesus, because they sound too much like pagan myth. Justin refers to the myth of Danae, who was impregnated by Zeus:
It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I, however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority of Christians/Nazarenes insist on this opinion.
The word "Nazarenes" was, in fact, in the beginning a general name given to the Christians of Palestine by the Jews (cf. Acts xxiv. 5), and as such synonymous with ‘Ebionites’.
It is common for Isaiah chapter 7 to be used as a prophecy which supposedly proves the “virgin birth.” It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" - betulah, does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah - young woman - as "the virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "the virgin," it means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. A young woman can be either married or unmarried. The word for ‘virgin’ is betulah, which can only refer to an unmarried girl.
If you read this chapter, and the following one, it is clear that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance could Ahaz, who was surrounded by two overwhelming military enemies, find in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would long be dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (he knows to reject bad and choose good), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16 we see that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection (immanu’el - G-d with us), that Ahaz and his people would enjoy, from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. For King Ahaz circa 735 BCE, the birth of the Messiah some seven hundred years later would have been of little consolation!
The passage says ‘the’ young woman, not ‘a’ young woman, which implies that it is a young woman known to Ahaz.
Furthermore, in the Isaiah passage, the Hebrew refers to a young woman who is already pregnant, because the word following ‘almah’ is hara, which means is pregnant. What it is actually saying is:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-El” (Isaiah 7:14).
Thus, this passage cannot be speaking of a future event, as she is already pregnant.
The Christian Greek translators of the Tanakh and New Testament had made a mistake. When they were translating the Hebrew Tanakh into Greek, they translated the Hebrew word ‘almah’ into the Greek equivalent of our English word for virgin - parthena. The same word from which is derived the name of the Greek ‘Temple of Virgins’ - the Parthenon. The word parthena strictly means ‘virgin’, not ‘young woman’.
“Almah” appears 9 other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means “young woman.” When the Scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word ‘betulah’.
Hebrew teachings do not specify that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; the very idea is alien to Jewish expectations of who the Messiah would be. Quite contrary to the Hellenized ‘Jesus’, there is nothing in the Jewish sacred books to suggest that the Messiah or anyone else was, or was to be, born of a virgin.
The gods and heroes of the Mystery religions were all born of virgins. This belief was prevalent in the first century, because the Mystery religions are much older than Christianity. It seems that these ideas were creeping into the Nazarene Community concerning Jesus, that he was the product of a union between a mortal and a G-d. Thus John states:
(1John 4:2) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of G-d: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from G-d.
(2John 1:7) Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus the Messiah as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the anti-Messiah.
1. Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th.
2. Dionysus
3. Nimrod
4. Horus
5. Hercules
6. Buddha was born of the virgin Maya.
7. The Egyptian G-d Horus was born of the virgin Isis.
8. In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
9. In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin.
10. The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus.
11. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
12. In India, the G-d Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki.
13. Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great.
Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
One example of tampering is 1 John 5:7: “And there are three which bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This verse only appears in the Catholic Doue Bible (Latin Vulgate), and in the King James, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. You will not find this verse in any other translation of the New Testament. The reason why? Bible scholars tell us it was added in order to clarify Church doctrine - the doctrine of the Trinity, of course. This is one example of tampering. Then there are also the errors. For example, in Matthew 27 we read about Judas’s betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Verse 9 says: “Then what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, namely, I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel.” The problem here is that these words are not found in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah 11:12,13. This is a rather blatant mistake.
Another possible addition is the account of the children being murdered by Herod. In Matthew 2:16, Matthew records that Herod ordered the execution of all children less than two years of age in Bethlehem. This event is not recorded in either Jewish or secular history. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews, has a long history of Herod and his crimes (Antiquities, Book XIV, Chapter VIII and following). The alleged massacre at Bethlehem is not among them. Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:1), and Josephus was the General of the Galilean Army. Surely, as Judaism’s greatest historian of that Era, he would have recorded such a tragic event.
Because there is no external support for Herod's murder of the children, the matter cannot be established as fact, as there are no witnesses to this event.
Another error is found in Matthew 2:23, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” This prophecy is not recorded anywhere in the Tanakh.
All New Testament books were written by the end of the first century CE. Mark was written around 65-70CE; Matthew and Luke (the only of the Gospels with the virgin birth account) were written around 85 CE and John around 95 CE.
Obviously, Jesus said and did a lot more that what is found in the Gospels. This raises the question of why certain deeds and sayings were remembered while others were not recorded or forgotten. So why is an issue as important as a Virgin Birth not mentioned in two Gospels, or in any other New Testament writings?
The concept of the “virgin birth” cannot be shown to be true. In fact, the foundation of the religion of Christianity crumbles without two basic ideas: 1) the divinity of Jesus (requiring the virgin birth) and 2) the idea that one needs to know exactly who the Messiah will be and believe that a particular person will turn out to be the Messiah in order to have a place in the “world to come.” There is one and only one “religion” which was given to mankind, and that is Torah-true Judaism.