Explain the virgin birth in both Science and Religion perspectives

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is a biological miracle. Being a miracle, it is not capable of biological proof, analogies of parthenogenesis in the biological world being irrelevant. This justification must be documentary, historical and theological. We can offer no biological proof of the virgin birth and yet we can offer justification of this biological miracle.

a) The virgin birth is possible on Christian presupposition
A virgin birth could be as a result of:
i. Artificial insemination.
ii. Chemical activation of an ovum (results in a female) eggs of sea urchins can be chemically activated to reproduce.
iii. By the act of God.
Cows are being artificially inseminated, but artificial insemination is not a proper analogy and may be dropped from the discussion.
Certainly at the time of Christ there was no known means of chemically activating a human ovum. We are shut up to normal birth of a miracle.
Granted an omnipotent God, original creator of the human body, the possibility or conceivability of a virgin birth is established. God could do it. The Christian has the sufficient presumption for it in his doctrine of God.

b) The virgin birth into the Christian scheme
- A man may believe in an omnipotent God, deny the miraculous birth of Christ. A religious modernist believes in God but hardly the virgin birth.
- Evangelicals insist that the virgin birth is part of the Christian system. The virgin birth focuses on the incarnation of God.
- The virgin birth was the door way by which the son of God stepped into humanity as part of humanity, yet free from original sin and free man from sin.

c) The factuality
The factuality of the virgin is a matter of seeing the testimony o history through the perspective of Christian theology. We could know that the virgin birth took place by being told so by God or, by the personal testimony of the virgin.
In the New Testament, we have the supernatural disclosure to Joseph that through the Holy Spirit his betrothed had become pregnant. Mary is told what is to take place in her and the permission is given.
“And Mary said, ‘Behold am the hand maid of Lord, let it be so done to me according to your word’” Luke 1:38
Without these disclosures the virgin birth would hardly have been ethical or understood by her. The plan according to the New Testament is that by divine revelation, through angels, both Joseph and Mary were informed of the virgin birth and of the modus operandi
Do we have the testimony of Mary? Naturally would be a delicate subject for discussion while Mary was alive, the resurrection was The Miracle of Jesus Christ which gripped the disciples. It would see the connection of the virgin birth and incarnation.
Taking the traditional dates of the gospels, we cannot doubt that Matthew, and John were personal friends of Mary and this can not be doubted if we take Acts 1 as a reliable history. Peter too was a friend of Mary and Peter is behind Mark’s gospel. It is not possible that Luke had personal conversations with Mary.
There is the interesting statement which Luke makes of Mary.
But Mary kept all these things pondering them in he heart “ Luke 2:19
Could not all the apostolic company have heard the Christmas story from Mary? Could not Luke have heard it in tender but holy counsel with Mary as he collected the materials of his gospel?
There is no biological evidence for the virgin birth. The evidence is theistic if we believe in an omnipotent God who could do it and theological we see its place in the incarnation and we see the place of incarnation in redemption and historical,. We have records of trustworthy men before us in the writings of the gospel and in the earliest documents of the church.
Let no man feel that he is compromising intelligence on critical spirit if he believes in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

---

Wilfykil answered the question on March 2, 2019 at 06:52