by 
One of the arguments that’s used in an attempt to cast a bad light on the Virgin Birth goes something like this: There are only two Gospels that speak to the Virgin Birth– or to His birth at all. This, coupled with the idea that we know more about Jesus as we get closer to the cross (and it’s “more verifiable”) we are told multiple times.
A passage in John 8:39-41, I feel, alludes to the Virgin Birth– or the common misconception by the religious leaders of the day– that Jesus was born out of wedlock.
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.
Jesus is, of course, talking about spiritual heritage rather than physical, but the statement “We be not born of fornication” seems to only make sense to me in the context of trying to take a shot at Jesus’ conception. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense.
You see, it’s a battle of who they claim their line and rights from. Jesus is attacking them because even though they can claim to be Jews– descendants of Abraham– they are not following after God like Him. The best that the Pharisees can do is to deflect, and claim that they cannot tell Jesus’ line– or one of the common thoughts, that He was born from fornication.
This is not a verification of the entire story of the Virgin birth, for sure, but it does cast suspicion on anyone that would believe that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Obviously, this would be a problem for those who believed that He was God if He was born of fornication, or worse– born of a Gentile man. It would also mean that He would not be in the right line to claim the throne of King David.
The Scripture produces all sorts of verifications, if you have an eye to see them.
So now not only one has to prove to Catholics that he was not a perpetual virgin whole her life, but also prove to the other crowd that she was a virgin before having Jesus…
Apologetics is important! And interesting, and really necessary.
Yes, I think you are right in this interpretation. On the other hand, I don’t really see a problem that there are only two accounts of Christ’s birth. Do we doubt that he was born because there are just two accounts? 🙂
Or more seriously, Mark clearly tells us a story from the perspective of an eyewitness to everything he describes (the man who ran off naked when discovered in Mark 14 51,52 was almost certainly Mark himself. He is telling us that he was an eyewitness to the events and this was how he was an eyewitness).
John writes with a completely different perspective. Whereas the synoptics stress the gradual revelation of the Messiah to the people, John begins with the full revelation. His differing perspective somewhat precludes a nativity story. It is also possible that he did not *know* the nativity story (beyond what was described by Luke, who – after all- clearly spoke to Mary in compiling his narrative).