If there were no Virgin Birth, would the Christmas story (of Jesus' birth) still be important?

Question

I have often asked myself that question. Like, what's wrong with believing in a Jesus who may or may not have been born of a Virgin mother? There are many other great things about Jesus too, aren’t there?

I'm not slamming Christians for what they believe.

I'm not going to hand out quotes or 'evidence'. All I'll say is that the Bible has, through the centuries/ millennia been expertly edited in different ways, to suit the beliefs of the editors. One of the big things that could have been edited was the Virgin Birth, as well as prophesies of it. I'm just saying, 'could have'.

More importantly, I'd like to know if Christianity and Christmas would be any different had there been no Virgin Birth. Thanks.

Answer 1

A really interesting question...
According to some, sin is passed down through the blood of the man. (Those aren't my words; I've heard it from a few pastors.) The fact that he was born from the seed of God or an angel or the holy spirit or something of that sort means that he was obviously a sort of divinity. This would satisfy those schools of thought that say he was transcendant from other humans and purer than the rest of us and all of that.
..But then, the question begs itself to be asked -- if it wasn't in his genetic makeup to be sinful (I mean, if the capacity for sin wasn't passed down to him), was it even possible for him to sin at all? Because if it wasn't possible for him to sin, then he wasn't 100% man. And in order for him to be the savior - theologically - he'd have to be 100% man AND 100% God.
All in all, it's a bit of a conundrum. There's as good a theological argument for him being born of a virgin than not, I think. But as for your original questions, yes I think the importance of Christ's birth wouldn't be diminished either way. And Would Christianity and Christmas be any different had there not have been a virgin birth? I doubt it. Frankly - and this is sacreligious of me - I really don't think Jesus was born of a virgin. Taking what I know of human nature and hyperbole and the like, I think he could have been born of two fish and the story would still have been distorted to what it is now: a virgin and God had this sort of demi-God named Jesus who changed the world and invented Christmas.
Hope this is thorough enough.

Answer 2

You hit the nail on the head with the editing of the bible. There was not a virgin birth. It was just another way for Romans to make Jesus seem supernatural and removed from man. Otherwise people would be able to identify with Jesus as human and would not feel that they needed to serve a higher power in man on earth. Neither Jesus or the Roman Emporer.

Answer 3

I think that it is quite possible that Jesus and everything that goes with him would still be just as "big" even if there was not a virgin birth. I think, though, there would be a problem explaining how Jesus could be the Son of God if he was born purely of humans. That's why I think the virgin birth is important.

Answer 4

Truthfully... I don't think it would have been any different because there would have been something else. Your right -through time people have edited and revised so most likely there is- something missing! But like you've stated Jesus has done so much with or without being born of a virgin but the point of being born of a virgin just simply means... How is it possible to conceive without conception--- Therefore, it was and it is an act of the most high, but truth of this matter is; is that if God himself would have just sent a baby by one of His angels and given it to Mary and told her to raise him as her own, on that day, it still would have been a miracle and it still would have been Jesus our Lord, our Messiah and the man we know and love, our Savior--- God would have made him just like he made Adam. Just Him! But he had to pass through a woman's womb to fulfill what we all know... To be one of us. To have a normal life but far from normal- extraordinary, the world and humans *

Answer 5

One of the biggest problems with the Bible is the translation. Most of it was written in Greek and Hebrew and then it was translated into English under the orders of King James of England in 1611. We still use the same translation today even though it is written in Old English. MANY words have taken on new meaning since then. In the Middle East 2000 years ago a woman was considered a “virgin” if she had never given birth - it DIDN’T mean the woman had never had sex!

Answer 6

The virgin birth had great weight in the first century or so. Now it really doesn't matter. People are fixed in their way of belief.
Science says is does occur in about one in billion births. The person is referred to as a haploid.

Answer 7

Just so you know,Christians aren't the ones who care alot about the Virgin Mary,moreso Catholics. It is known to be a miracle,but we (christians) care about God/Holy Spirit/Jesus. There are many great things,Christ,and nobody (if they dont want to) should have to focus on Mary,and can just focus on God. The Bible,isn't really edited as far as changing events and such,just NIV,NKJ,AND the like. I hope this helped.

Answer 8

There was a virgin birth, Jesus fulfilled more than 300 prophesies. The bible is accurate historically and prophetically. God keeps His promises and His word is holy and infalliable.

Answer 9

I am non-christian but I explain abit.
Virgin birth is the manifestation of God himself.
As for virgin birth, I must say that WOW test tube baby is
been invented long ago!

Answer 10

Jesus is the fulfillment of the virgin birth.God only begotten son.No man touched ,where God would place the savior.God does not need second best,or used.
So to answer your question,if no virgin birth -then it would not have been of God.It would not have been our savior Jesus<><