What it is not!
1. Muslims and others who say part of the Greco-Roman pagan stories, I.e., gods having sex with humans; the only such story is the awful, supernatural sin of angels procreating with women, Gen 6!What are Pagan stories? Zeus creating demi-gods [half god-half human, double nature] like Hercules!
Mithra Roman mystery-cult savior, born from a rock! No ancient source says “Mithras had a virgin mother.” The “rock” is not a virgin woman; it’s a rock. And it wasn't Dec. 25.
Luke carefully avoids any hint of a sexual encounter.
In Luke 1:34 Mary asks the angel:
“How will this be possible since I have never been with a man?”
The angel answered with a precise miraculous reason and no other, by the power of holy spirit.
The language purposely echoes Genesis 1:2—the spirit “hovering” over the waters:
“…and the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” (LSB).
This is creation language, not a sexual description.
The conception is by divine creative fiat, nothing to do with God sex!
The Son of God is not some demi-god. He is a miraculously procreated human person, the second/last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), uniquely created by God like the first Adam.
Jude 6–7 interprets Gen 6 as angels crossing boundaries “in a similar way to Sodom,” that is, sexual rebellion.
This story is the opposite of the "virgin birth" story as a result leads to worldwide judgment (Flood), not a blessing on this earth!
The contrast is intentional:
Genesis 6 shows angels acting against God’s will, Luke 1 shows Mary and the angel acting in obedience to God’s will.
Genesis 6 involves sexual union, Luke 1 involves the creative power of God.
Genesis 6 brings judgment, Luke 1 brings ultimate blessing, salvation.
Adoptionism, the oldest heresy; including IVF type miracle;
Jesus was born in the normal human way — from a human father and mother, but at some later point (usually at his baptism) God “adopted” him and declared him His Son.
This view regards Jesus as a normal man elevated later by God.
Whereas both Matthew & Luke describe the origin (Mat 1.1, 18) by miraculous procreation (Mat 1.20; Luke 1:35) without a biological father.
By definition excludes adoptionism!
NOTE how Matthew 1:16 ends the record of the genesis [not just genealogy] of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of both Abraham and king David:
“Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, out of whom was fathered Jesus, who is called the Messiah.”
In the list preceding this verse, fathers beget or procreate sons, but in the case of Mary, the procreating is said to be by God Himself.
Joseph nonetheless remains important since Gospel of Matthew traces his geneology after all. But Joseph functions as Jesus' legal not biological father, a concept well-attested and uncontroversial in rabbinic Judaism.
And at the start of his ministry recognized publicly as God’s Son at baptism, not that he only became His Son at that point (Mark 1:11; Ps. 2:7).
First, No Biblical Doctrine Ever Teaches or Even Suggests Celibacy as a Holier State for either Males or Females; cp. Genesis command "be fruitful and multiply."
Celibacy like Monasticism post-biblical catholic dogmas.
Matt 1:25 clearly states they had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus:
Joseph "did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son"!
Hence, Gospels record Mary had multiple children after Jesus.
NOTE the Greek does have a specific term for "cousin" (anepsios, used once in Colossians 4:10 for Mark, cousin of Barnabas). Whereas adelphos (and its Hebrew counterpart) was the common, everyday word Jews used for any close male relative of the same generation.
2. Christian view to do with “original sin” not a mark or taint with the Son.
Sounds like another post-biblical invention that reflects Augustinian anthropolgy, nothing to do with the NT accounts.
The Bible as a whole does not tie sin to male descent.
NT account not a hint of it.
Why then? Tied to the new creation motif, i.e., the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), a unique creation, just as Adam was specially created by God.
3. Common objections answers:
Isaiah 7:14; Mat 1.23 virgin or young maiden girl?
The Heb. ʿalmâ in every occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, where the her sexual status is clear or implied, means a virgin (Gen 24:43 [Rebecca]; Exod 2:8 [Moses’ sister]; Ps 68:25; Song 1:3; 6:8; Prov 30:19).
Although the prophet could have used betula, but that word is sometimes qualified with “who has never known a man” (Gen 24:16; Judg 11:39), whereas ʿalmâ never needs such clarification.
NOTE sevelar later [2nd c. AD] Greek Jewish translations of Isaiah 7:14 [Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion] did not use παρθένος (“virgin”), unlike the earlier Septuagint (LXX).
Jewish-Christian biased polemics including: patristic testimony, translation/textual patterns, historical context, show that Jewish translators deliberately avoided “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 to undermine Christian use of the verse.
Preexistence Incarnation claims, Arian and Trini.
Summary: Why this matters!
Subverts the gospel itself! 2Tim 2:8
"Remember Jesus Messiah, resurrected from the dead, a biological descendant/seed [i.e., from the family] of David according to my Gospel."
The virgin birth marks the moment when God, by His spirit, brought into existence a new, uniquely procreated human person—the second Adam.
This miraculous beginning parallels Adam’s own, yet surpasses it, because the Son was managed to do what Adam could not.
His spirit-generated birth establishes him as the head of a new humanity, empowered to undo Adam’s failure and to lead his people into the coming Kingdom on earth.
Consequently, because his origin by procreation miracle by definition means the Son cannot have literally preexisted.
Don’t ASK QUESTIONS THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON.
