It’s Christmas Season, So Here Come the Virgin Birth Skeptics – And They’re Still Wrong
Christmas is only a few weeks away, so expect to see and hear in the Mainstream Media skeptics of the New Testament claiming that there is “scant evidence” for the incarnate birth of Jesus Christ to the virgin Mary in Bethlehem.
Screenshot from YouTube.
More specifically, because a couple of the Gospel authors and Saint Paul say nothing at all about the Virgin Birth, these skeptics — notably, Bart Ehrman — claim that silence is evidence for the conclusion that the miracle never happened at all.
But that argument is fallacious, according to Erik Manning of Is Jesus Alive? in the following video, in which he notes all kinds of important characters and events in ancient history that weren’t mentioned by well-known authors. But skeptics like Ehrman claim that means they didn’t exist or happen:
There is specific scientific evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus, as supplied by (a poorly publicized) genetic analysis of the bloodstains on two independent artefacts from the crucifixion and subsequent burial in the tomb: the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. I cover all the details in this post at my blog: https://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/12/christmas-special-tiplers-virgin-birth.html
I am not familiar with the Sudarium of Oviedo, but the Shroud of Turin has been proven to be a 14th century artifact with absolutely no blood on it whatsoever. Furthermore, although parthenogenesis is, at least theoretically, possible in humans, that is not what happened with Jesus. His conception was miraculous and therefore would not show the genetic markers of the natural event of parthenogenesis. This is all over and above the fact that even if the shroud were 2000 years old and had blood on it, the cells would have degraded to such an extent that no significant DNA would remain.