The Gateway to Doubting the Gospel Narratives Is The Virgin Birth Myth

There's an argument that marijuana is the gateway drug leading to dangerous drugs. [I think it's largely false but don't get sidetracked on it.] There is however, a gateway to doubting the whole Bible that I want to highlight here.

I focus on the virgin birth of Jesus because this is the gateway to doubting the gospel narratives, just as Genesis 1-11 is the gateway to doubting the Old Testament narratives. It was for me anyway. It was the first tale in the gospels that led me to doubting it all. You can see this double doubting of both Testaments in this LINK of the --> five most important books that changed my mind, and this LINK of the -->the five most powerful reasons not to believe.

Apologists focus on the resurrection of Jesus primarily because they have studied it so much more than the virgin birth narratives. They now use LINK to --> the minimal facts approach to the resurrection to sweep off the table what nonbelievers unanimously agree on, especially that the virgin Mary was the mother of God's Son! 

The reason this agreement should stay on the table is because it speaks directly to the credibility of the gospel narratives as a whole. Since there's no good reason to believe the virgin birth myth, there's no good reason to believe the resurrection myth either. After all, the virgin birth narratives are in the same gospels that contain the resurrection narratives (Matthew & Luke anyway). If the narratives about the virgin-born incarnate God are non-historical myth, then so too are the narratives about the resurrection of this same virgin-born incarnate God. For one thing, without a credible virgin birth story, Christians are left with no explanation how an incarnate God came became a human being!

So here's the scoop on the virgin birth. LINK! 

This undercuts the Gospel of Matthew. LINK! 

Before you go:

Probabilities. The historical method doesn't allow for possibilities, only probabilities, as Bart Ehrman explains. LINK! 

Dr. John Beversluis, wrote a devastating piece on the inconsistency in the genealogies.  LINK. There are ten posts. Click on his name at the end to read others.

A former Christan who went by the name "Dagoods" claims "John the Disciple did not write the Gospel of John" LINK. He also asks an interesting question: "Why didn’t the Jews just stone Jesus?" LINK.

Harry McCall wrote a detailed post titled, "The Illusive Search for Truth in the Biblical Foundations of Judaism and Christianity." LINK.

I have discussed why Judas Iscariot didn't exist, LINK, and that Joseph of Arimathea didn't exist, LINK. If they didn't exist this is damaging to Gospel credibility, is it not?

The kicker is that the author of the Gospel of John fact-checked earlier Gospels, as biblical scholar David Madison shows. LINK. How else should we think about these Gospels?

Thank you profusely for reading! [First published on 6/13/20]