Myth #3: There was no virgin birth and Jesus was not born in Bethlehem

The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ

DVD

The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ

Who is the Real Jesus?

Ever since the dawn of modern rationalism, skeptics have sought to use textual criticism, archeology and historical reconstructions to uncover the “historical Jesus” — a wise teacher who said many wonderful things, but fulfilled no prophecies, performed no miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead in triumph over sin.

Over the past 100 years, however, startling discoveries in biblical archeology and scholarship have all but vanquished the faulty assumptions of these doubting modernists. Regrettably, these discoveries have often been ignored by the skeptics as well as by the popular media. As a result, the liberal view still holds sway in universities and impacts the culture and even much of the church.

The Real Jesus explodes the myths of these critics and the movies, books and television programs that have popularized their views. Presented in ten parts — perfect for individual, family and classroom study — viewers will be challenged to go deeper in their knowledge of Christ in order to be able to defend their faith and present the truth to a skeptical modern world – that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus of history — “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He is the real Jesus.

Speakers include: George Grant, Ted Baehr, Stephen Mansfield, Raymond Ortlund, Phil Kayser, David Lutzweiler, Jay Grimstead, J.P. Holding, and Eric Holmberg.

Read more

Related Articles:


Myth #3: There was no virgin birth and Jesus was not born in Bethlehem

Video: Myth #3: There was no virgin birth and Jesus was not born in Bethlehem
Myth #3: There was no virgin birth and Jesus was not born in Bethlehem
Click play to connect to youtube

Jennings: “We cannot tell you whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, that is a matter of faith. But if you have difficulty with the idea that the Virgin Mary could get pregnant without a man involved, there are a number of ways to explain why in Luke it is written that way.” [24:50]

Jennings: “Some scholars think that Jesus was illegitimate and that the story was a cover-up.” [26:28]

That Jesus was born of a virgin is confirmed by both Matthew and Luke. In his Gospel, Matthew writes that this miracle was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

The name Immanuel in Hebrew means literally “God-With-Us.” In other words, God himself was to be incarnate in human form. And the miraculous sign would be that He would be born of a virgin.

Now some have said that the word “virgin” in Hebrew can simply mean a maiden or an unmarried woman. The problem with this speculation is the context of Isaiah’s prophecy. A “sign” in the Hebrew language is simply another way of translating the word “miracle.” And the exclamation “Behold!” means to look with wonder. Both Isaiah and the Gospel writers meant to say that the Messiah would be born of a virgin and the witnesses would look in wonder at the event.

Peter Jennings is right about one thing. There is no physical evidence other than the scripture left to us today to determine the miracle of the Incarnation. But not only is the virgin birth called into question, but also the place and circumstances of Jesus’ birth also prophesied in scripture.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

— Matthew 2:1-6

According to prophecy given hundreds of years before Jesus was born, not only would He be born of a virgin, but He would also be born in the city of David, his forefather, in Bethlehem. Of course, Peter Jennings disagrees.

Jennings: “Luke writes that Joseph and Mary came here to Bethlehem from Nazareth because the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus had ordered a world wide taxation. Now there is no record outside the Gospels that the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered such a tax. Roman tax records do show that a man is to be taxed where he lives and where he works and Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth. Tax records also show they didn’t count women. And so why would Joseph have brought Mary on this very difficult journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem through the desert especially when she was very pregnant?” [10:33-11:06]

But let’s look at what the Gospel of Luke actually says:

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered (Luke 2:1-6).

Some translations have the word “taxed” for the Greek word apographé, a word that comes from the Greek verb meaning to enroll or to register. What Luke actually wrote is not that Joseph came to Bethlehem “to be taxed,” but that he came “to register” in a census. In the ancient world, a census was often used to assess the amount of able-bodied males eligible for military service.

According to ancient historians, this census was for a renewal of loyalty in the form of an oath of allegiance to Caesar Augustus. In order for the oath to be taken, all adult men had to be registered and actually sign their names to the oath of allegiance.

Josephus states, “The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod] …” He adds that “above 6000 Pharisees refused to swear.” Based on Josephus’ writings, this oath was sworn in the year 3 B.C. This was the census for the taking of the oath to which Luke refers. The actual census may have been conducted the year before in 4 B.C. which is in accord with most reliable dates for the time of Christ’s birth and stay in Bethlehem.

Furthermore, the fact that Josephus knew the number of Pharisees who did not take the oath indicates that some sort of record was made of who did and did not take the oath. This too, seems to prove that a registration or census took place.

Other ancient historians note that the census took place in other parts of the known Roman world as well. An inscription was found in Paphlagonia (a region in North Central Asia Minor) dated to 3 B.C. stating that an oath of obedience was “taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them.”

The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, stated that the native sources he had available showed that in the year of Abgar, king of Armenia in 3 B.C., a census brought Roman agents “to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple.” (Martin, Ernest L., The Star That Astonished the World, ©1996, ASK Publications; Portland, OR, p.185.)

So it is even more amazing that Peter Jennings would sweep aside this evidence only to tell his viewers:

“Now there is no record outside the Gospel that the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered such a tax.”

In order for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God, He would have to be born of a virgin in Bethlehem according to Old Testament prophecies — which brings us to the next claim of the Higher Critics.

Note: For a fascinating look at the historical reliability of the Gospels’ nativity accounts, we recommend the Ernest L. Martin’s book, The Star That Astonished the World, .

1 Comment

Isaiah 7:14 was never ever a prophecy about a supposed virgin born Jesus some 700 years later. Micah 5:2 was never, ever a prophecy of where the Messiah was to be born. Here is why. Both of these scriptures are pulled out of context with surrounding verses and made to seem they were a prophecy.In Isa.7:14 the Hebrew word “Almah“is mis-translated the word only means young woman or maiden without regard to whether she was a sexual virgin. Elsewhere in the book of Isaiah this very same writer used the Hebrew word “Bethulah“when referring to a sexual virgin it does mean a sexual virgin so you know the writer knew the difference in the two Hebrew words.Matthew pulls Isa.7:14 completely out of context with surrounding verses to make it seem it applied to a virgin born Jesus.Verse 15 is about the same lad as in v.14, Jesus did not come eating Butter and Honey, neither could verse 16 refer to Jesus. If you read the whole chapter of Isa.7 and continue on through Isa.8:8 in context you see in Isa.8:3 the child was conceived and born in Isa.8:3 and in Isa.8:8 the child was called Immanuel all of this happened in the time of Ahaz and never was a prophecy about Jesus some 700 years later.

Now lets look at Micah 5:2.It is also pulled out of context and made to seem a prophecy.Read in context Micah 5:1-6 verse one mentions troops (army)verse six mentions Assyria wasted in war these verses are about a military leader which Jesus never was. Anytime you see Bethlehem and Ephratah connected together it does not mean the town of Bethlehem it means the man named Bethlehem who had a clan named Ephrathites as shown in Ruth 1:1-2 and other places in the O.T.Notice in Matt.2:6 the writer deliberately leaves out the word Ephratah that’s in Micah 5:2 and adds the word Juda to make it seem this meant the town of Bethlehem instead of the man named Bethlehem. I can go through every claimed O.T. prophecy supposedly fulfilled by Jesus and prove they never were a prophecy about the Messiah to begin with.They are pulled out of context with surrounding verses and made to seem prophecies fulfilled. Sincerely, In Real Truth,
Jay Osborne

Your comments are welcome

Use Textile help to style your comments

Suggested products

DVD

The Silent Scream

Ronald Reagan changed his view as a result of watching The Silent Scream – a movie he considered so powerful and convicting that he screened it at the White House.

Read more