The Virgin Birth
   
In this lesson we will be dealing with the Scriptures which speak 
about the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.  There are those who 
do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ and this is perfectly all 
right.  You can believe whatever you want to believe; it's a free 
country.  Help yourself!  However, the Scriptures plainly teach it and 
plainly back it up many times and the obvious implications of the 
doctrine are rather dramatic, for if Jesus Christ were not virgin 
born, then He was just like you or me, which means He would be wicked 
and sinful just like you and me, and you couldn't trust Him as far as 
you could kick the building with your left foot.
   
A man who says he believes in the resurrection of Christ but not in 
the virgin birth is very inconsistent indeed, for after all, if Jesus 
Christ were not sinless (with a different nature than you have) then, 
obviously, He is where you will be--in a hole in the ground.  The 
virgin birth of Jesus Christ, then, is the crucial point of Scripture 
and the crux between Christ's personality and His life and work and 
the life and work of any other religious leader.  After all, anybody 
can find Mohammed's grave.  The corpse is still there.  Anybody can 
find Buddha's grave.  The corpse is still there.  There wasn't a pope 
who ever died whose corpse could not have been produced, but nobody 
has ever found the missing corpse of Christ.  Somebody said, "Well, 
that's because...." No, you haven't thought it out.  You are just 
talking.  Your mind works like a flying saucer; it stops and turns at 
an angle without thinking.  There were more people looking for the 
corpse of Jesus Christ than have looked for any corpse of any man who 
ever died.  If it COULD be found, then the Roman soldiers certainly 
would have found it.  The virgin birth determines the resurrection and 
vice versa.  Even though Christ lived a sinless life, if He had a 
sinful nature He could not have saved anybody.
   
If Christ was born without a sinful nature then how was this 
accomplished?  Now, God the Father solved this problem by what is 
called the virgin birth.  The mystery of the virgin birth is to be 
believed and accepted by Bible-believing people.  It is called a 
"great mystery" in I Timothy 3:16 where we are told it is the "Mystery 
of Godliness." God was manifest in the flesh.  Jesus did not have a 
human father, for the Holy Spirit was His Father.  Mary was His 
mother, but she did not pass on the sin nature to the baby Jesus 
because the child gets His nature from the seed and the seed comes 
from the father.  That isn't all.
   
There is a much more important passage that has to do with this matter 
and it puts the religious devotee in the position of having to either 
accept or reject the virgin birth.  This is the fact that in Jeremiah 
22 the Lord prophesied that no man who came from the physical seed of 
Coniah and Zedekiah could ever sit down on the throne of David.  When 
Christ was born (Luke 1:30-33), Mary was told that He would get the 
throne of his father David.  In Psalm 110 the Messiah is said to get 
the throne of his father David.  In Acts 2:30,31 Simon Peter 
prophesied that the Messiah will get the throne of his father David.  
In Matthew 19:28 this is called the "Throne of His Glory," as it is 
found in Jeremiah.  Now, we're not talking about the White Throne of 
Revelation 20 here.  (The White Throne is never confused with the 
throne of God's glory, which is the earthly throne of David.)
   
If, therefore, Jesus had a human father (like all religious liberals 
and all students of oriental religions who have a way of rejecting 
scientific fact believe) and if Jesus Christ came from the seed of the 
Jewish kings who once inherited the throne of David, He could not 
inherit the throne of David.  Therefore, the seed had to be 
supernatural.  One time when Jesus spoke of these things He said to 
the religious leaders of His day, "How then doth David in spirit call 
him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord,...how is he his son?" 
(Matt.  22:43-45).  And the answer is that He couldn't be unless His 
father was God.  No Jewish father would ever call his son "Lord." It's 
out of the question.
   
The virgin birth is foretold in the Old Testament.  The first 
reference in Genesis 3:15 says the woman will have a seed which, of 
course, no woman has.  In Genesis 12:1,2, God called Abraham to be the 
father of a chosen nation; then out of that chosen nation God picked 
one tribe (Gen.  49:10).  We are told that from this one tribe, from 
one city in this tribe, the man will come.  In 2 Samuel 7:8-16 the 
Saviour will be born of the family of David to be a son of David, and 
David came from Bethlehem.  In Isaiah 7:14 we have the actual 
prophecy, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall 
call his name Immanuel." This is repeated in Matthew 1:23 where the 
Greek word parthenos can only be translated "virgin"--never "young 
woman." So, all the nonsense about "Alma," as in "Alma Mater" (your 
virgin mother), in Isaiah 7:14 referring to "young woman" is 
blasphemous nonsense.  The word was interpreted by the Holy Spirit in 
Matthew 1:23 to be parthenos, which never means "young woman." It 
means "virgin"!
   
The historical fulfillment of the prophecy of the virgin birth is 
found in Matthew 1 and Luke 2.  Mary was engaged to Joseph but they 
were not married yet.  Christ was born of a virgin, but a "betrothed 
virgin," so that she could be married to protect her good name.  
Mary's conception was definitely from the Holy Ghost (if you believe 
the Bible record) and not from her fiance Joseph, or from any other 
man whatsoever; otherwise, Christ was an illegitimate child and His 
mother was a fornicator.  The Pharisees understood perfectly the 
implications of the virgin birth, for they said of Jesus Christ when 
they got angry with Him, "We be not born of fornication," John 8:41.  
"Abraham is our father" (Jn.  8:39), obviously saying, "You are born 
of fornication." The Lord encouraged Joseph to marry Mary in order to 
be a companion and guide to her and to protect her from the extremity 
of the law.  The severity of the law in Leviticus 20:10 said that he 
could have had her put to death.
   
Matthew 1:25 tells us that although Joseph and Mary were married, they 
never lived together as husband and wife until after the birth of the 
Saviour.  After the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ had other 
brothers and sisters according to the flesh and they are listed by 
name in Mark 6:3, and they are called brethren:  "brothers" and 
"sisters." This is why the word "firstborn" has been removed from the 
new Bibles in Matthew 1--to protect the dogmatic private 
interpretation of religious phoneys who think they are smart enough to 
correct the word of God.  Christ is the firstborn and Mary bears 
brothers and sisters to Him after His birth according to the 
scripture--not according to your opinion or your religious upbringing.  
God took special care to insert that verse with its details to show us 
that the unborn child could not possibly be contaminated by a human 
father.  For after all, the "seed" is the male's, in spite of the 
contemporary emphasis on women's lib.  Anybody knows that a woman has 
no seed and a man does.  The scientific facts are never in line with 
the ecumenical, social, religious, communistic magpie's nest.  You 
have to violate every law of nature to create such a holocaust.
   
Some people try to maintain that Paul did not teach the virgin birth 
of Christ.  This is because Paul doesn't use the exact expression, but 
Paul knew perfectly well the risen Christ was virgin born as is 
apparent by I Corinthians 15:8, and Colossians 1:15-17.  In Romans 1:3 
when Paul speaks of the resurrection, he speaks about Christ as coming 
according to the seed of David as "according to the flesh." That is, 
Paul recognized that Christ's spiritual ancestry is God the Father, 
being born by the Holy Spirit of spiritual seed, and the only way you 
can connect Jesus Christ with the house of David and the throne of 
David is through Mary, according to the flesh.  Christ's other nature 
was the "Son of God." Christ, of course, acknowledges two natures as 
the Son of God and as the Son of man.
   
Matthew explicitly states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost 
and was born of a virgin in Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:20 and Matthew 
1:23.  Luke, a registered physician, would have been most interested 
in this medical phenomenon.  After all, every child must have a 
father.  Who was the father of the baby Jesus?  If the father was 
human, then He had a sinful nature and you are still in your sins 
right now and you will die in your sins.  If Jesus Christ had a human 
father then He was no different than Mohammed or Buddha or Lao-tzu or 
Mao Tse-tung or Gandhi or Jim Jones or any religious nut setting 
himself up to be something that he is not when he is nothing but a 
self-deluded pagan.
   
Jesus Christ said this in John 14:6:  "I am the way, the truth and the 
life:  no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If He had a human 
father, then that was the funniest story He ever told.  Imagine the 
nerve and conceit of some man standing up and saying, "No man can come 
to God except by me." What a thing to say!  But, He said it!  He said, 
"No man knoweth...who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the 
Son will reveal it" (Luke 10:22).  He said, "Come unto me, all ye that 
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt.  11:28).  
Do you think that a man could talk like that and get anybody to 
believe it if he was a sinner?  Why, who would believe a ridiculous 
story like that?  Who would believe a man who sat up when somebody 
gave money to the poor and worried about the donations and say, "Well, 
you've always got the poor to help out, but you don't always have me 
to help out.  So, you had better spend that money on me instead of the 
poor." That is what He said.  Did you ever read that account about 
Mary breaking the alabaster box and anointing His feet with precious 
ointment and Judas complaining about the poor and Christ saying, "Oh, 
don't worry about that.  Put me ahead of the poor." Boy, try that one 
on Karl Marx and see how that turns out!  Try that one on the corrupt 
government agencies, and see how they take to that, boy!
   
Now, let me tell you something, friend.  If Jesus Christ was not 
supernaturally born by God, the Holy Spirit, with a supernatural 
nature, "God manifest in the flesh," then he was the biggest, lying 
four-flusher who ever walked across the face of this earth.  Now, if 
you don't like that, lump it.  Don't get mad!  Don't get upset!  Don't 
holler about equal time and equal rights!  Just face the facts.  No 
man could say what Jesus Christ said and tell the truth about it if he 
had a human father.
   
The trouble is that some folks like to pretend that He didn't say some 
of the things He said, but the same record that professes that He was 
virgin born says that He said what He said after He showed up on this 
earth.  He sat down at the table with a man one time to eat and the 
man looked at Him and said to himself, "He didn't wash His hands 
before He sat down at the table." And Christ said out loud, "You 
haven't washed your heart.  Please pass the salt." Is that any way for 
a genlleman to talk?  Then how do you say He was a gentleman and also 
a normal man?  No normal man who was a gentleman would talk that way.  
That's no way for a gentleman to talk.  That isn't the so-called 
"sweet spirit of Christ"!
   
What man would stand up and shake his fist in the face of a long-robed 
"father" (Matt.  23:15) and say, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites!  for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and 
when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than 
yourselves." Now listen, you don't believe that a man should talk like 
that, but that is the way He talked.  And you are here to tell me that 
He was born of a human father and was a good man and a good man to 
follow and a great teacher when He talked like that?  He even 
disclaimed a human father when Mary said, "Didn't you know your father 
and I have sought thee sorrowing?" He said, "Hey, woman, didn't you 
know I am about my father's business?" Why, Christ's human father or 
foster father or stepfather was a carpenter, and when Christ said, "I 
am about my father's business," He was in the temple (Luke 2).  Now, 
what about that?   He denied His human ancestry and claimed God is his 
Father, not in the sense that a liberal claims it, but in a unique 
sense.
   
Christ didn't claim God as His father like some people talk about the 
"Fatherhood of God." Christ never prayed "Our father which art in 
heaven." He taught His disciples to pray "Our father." Christ never 
called God "Our Father." He called God the Father "My Father" and 
"Holy Father." Now, did you ever stop to think about those things in 
regard to the virgin birth?
   
How do you explain that Christ said, "If you being evil know how to 
give good gifts to your children..."; is that any way for a good man 
to talk?  A good man:  "If you being evil...." Christ took it for 
granted that you weren't any good to start with.
   
If some religious phonies would run into Jesus Christ head-on they 
would be trying to have Him crucified in twenty-four hours.  They 
haven't even considered what kind of man He was.  They got all their 
information about Him secondhand.  If Christ wasn't virgin born, "God 
manifest in the flesh," He was the biggest con-man and the biggest 
huckster who ever played the boards.  Christ didn't claim to be God's 
Son in the sense some folks claim to be.  Christ said, "I am the way," 
not a way.  "I am the way, the truth and the life:  no man cometh unto 
the Father, but by me"--not by my teaching--"by me."
   
Luke carefully explained the virgin birth of Christ in Luke 1:27; 31; 
34 and 35 as a licensed physician.  In Luke 1:34 Mary asks the 
sensible question of the angel:  "How shall this be, seeing I know not 
a man?" She infers that she was a pure virgin abhorring immorality, 
which, of course, as a good Jewish woman she had to.  Some folks 
believe in "premarital sex" (which is an educational word for 
fornication).  Some folks know nothing about being a virgin or 
abhorring immorality because some folks have "told it like it is not" 
for so long that they don't know what it is any more.  With today's 
freewheeling morality and situation ethics, some folks haven't got 
enough sense to blow their nose when they have a cold, so what 
difference does it make?  You can't deny Mary's condition just because 
you are a rascal yourself.  She was a virgin, professed to be a virgin 
and professed to have no carnal knowledge with a man.
   
In Luke 1:35 the angel carefully explained that the Holy Ghost would 
be the father of the child that Mary would bear.  You say, "I don't 
believe it." Then, you have got a problem!  Your problem is how to 
accept the "Sermon on the Mount" as the religious teaching of a good 
master when according to you you are actually dealing with a 
professional liar, for Christ at no time confessed Joseph as His 
father but everywhere confessed God to be His Father (and all the 
writers of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, emphasize His 
deity).  Now, His favorite term for Himself was "the Son of man," but 
notice that He never called Himself "a Son of man." Not once!
   
Now, what was the purpose of the virgin birth?  First of all, it was 
to reveal God (John 1:18).  Jesus came to declare and reveal the 
Father to men as a God of compassion and love and as a holy God who 
was sinless.  The purpose of the virgin birth was to bridge the chasm 
between God and man.  First Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, 
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Lately, 
there is a tendency in society to appease the feminist movement and to 
de-emphasize the manhood of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father.  But 
there is one God--Father, not mother--and one mediator between God and 
men--the man, not the woman--Christ Jesus.  In the Bible God the 
Father is male; God the Son is male; and God the Holy Spirit is male.  
The first man made is male and the woman is from his flesh, male 
flesh.  Bone of his bone, Adam says, and flesh of his flesh.
   
Now, assuming you have denied your own rational intelligence, then 
that rational intelligence will show you the truth in these matters in 
no uncertain terms.  They are Biblical truths.
   
The second purpose of the virgin hirh was to save men.  Hebrews 2:14 
and 16 make it clear that Christ's purpose in taking on the nature of 
man and becoming like a man was to taste death for every man and to 
take upon Him the seed of Abraham in order that He might suffer as a 
man and die as a man and be tempted as a man and go through what a man 
goes through.  This is worded so strongly that the writer says in 
Hebrews 5:8, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the 
things which he suffered."
   
Finally, the Lord Jesus Christ came down here to be born of a virgin 
to rescue the whole creation.  "For we know that the whole creation 
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now," Paul says in 
Romans 8:22-23, "...waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption 
of our body." To become a kind, compassionate, loving Saviour and a 
Redeemer, God had to take the place of His fallen creation.  No other 
plan would work.  There is nothing any guru or chela can tell you in 
Himalaya.  There is nothing the lamas can pull out of Mt.  Everest.  
There is nothing the Rosicrucians or the "wisdom of this world" has 
ever produced that could solve this simple problem.  Man is separated 
from God, and God to be holy and just and righteous cannot have 
fellowship with sinful man.  Samadhi and Nirvana cannot bridge the 
gap, for the man who goes into the self-hypnotic trance is still a 
sinner trying to commune with a sinless God.  To bridge this gap the 
gurus try to pretend that God is neither sinless nor sinful but 
neuter, so the problem is still unsolved.  The problem is only solved 
by God Himself so loving the world that He came down and produced 
Himself in the flesh as the Son of man and the Son of God.  He came 
down and identified with the human race, one of the sons of Adam, yet 
without sin.  He became tempted in all points like as we are, yet 
without sin; and because He Himself was tempted, He is able to succor 
them who are tempted also.  He was a man of sorrows and acquainted 
with grief; wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our 
iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his 
stripes we are healed.  Only the virgin birth solves the problem of a 
sinless God redeeming a sinful creation.
   
Once again, the modernists and liberals have always attacked the 
doctrine of the virgin birth just as they attack the doctrines of the 
total depravity of man, the deity of Christ and the inspiration of the 
scriptures.  The word "liberal" is a misnomer.  A "liberal" is 
supposed to be a man who is generous.  The man who is generous with 
his convictions about the Bible is not a liberal.  He is what the 
dictionary calls an "apostate." Liberals, of course, deny the virgin 
birth of Christ, and yet being somewhat hypocritical they insist upon 
holding to the teaehings of Christ, which is a stupid position when 
one studies it analytically.  If you examine why any man would think 
that Jesus Christ was a reliable teacher and at the same time a liar, 
you will find that it is certainly a greater mystery than the "mystery 
of Godliness" or the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
   
If man is depraved then he needs a Saviour to redeem him.  That is, if 
the first three chapters of the Bible are right, then the last three 
are right.  You can't have a heaven for saved people and a hell for 
unsaved people if nobody is unsaved.  You certainly can't have Jesus 
Christ talking about "hell fire"--which He talks about--if there isn't 
any hell, unless He's lying.
   
One must never forget that the liberal ministers can always be spotted 
by their constant criticism of what they naively call "hell fire and 
damnation preaching." The term "hell fire" is a term of Jesus Christ.  
The term "damnation" is a term of Jesus Christ.  Both terms originated 
from the mouth of Jesus Christ.  In Matthew 23 it is Jesus Christ who 
says, "...Ye shall receive the greater damnation." In Matthew 5:22, in 
the Sermon on the Mount, it is Jesus Christ who says, "hell fire."
   
The man who rejects hell fire and damnation preaching is the man who 
rejects the Lord Jesus Christ.  You do not accept His preaching while 
rejecting Him, nor do you accept Him while rejecting His preaching.  
If you have rejected His preaching then you have rejected Him and 
called Him a liar.  I know this is a very hard thing to say to some 
religious modernists and religious liberals who think they are smart 
enough to change the words of God; but believe me, we have the same 
feelings about them that they have for the word of God.  You shouldn't 
respect the "degrees" of anyone who rejects the Bible.  Some men live 
and die by "degrees." And the day that they begin to show respect for 
the Bible and the day that they begin to show respect for the word of 
God is the day that they can expect some respect from us for their 
"degrees."
   
Jesus Christ is the only possible Saviour of the world because He is 
the only Saviour who professes (and, of course, He is either lying or 
telling the truth) to be able to take God's hand in one of His hands 
and yours in the other.  There is no chance that Buddha held God's 
hand in his hand because his hand was the hand of sinful man, a sinner 
born in sin, dead in sin--trespasses and sin.  There is no chance that 
Lao-tze or Mao Tse-tung could have done the job.  These men could 
certainly put their feet of clay in the dust and contact vou, but they 
couldn't put their hands in God's hands in the clouds and contact Him.  
After all, they were sinners just like you !
   
In the Old Testament there was a man named Jacob.  Jacob had a dream.  
In Jacob's dream he saw a ladder with the lower end upon the earth and 
with the top end, the Bible says, reaching to heaven.  Now, this 
ladder is plainly a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ, because when 
Jesus Christ shows up in the book of John He says to His disciples, 
"You are going to see the angels descending and ascending upon the Son 
of man." Those of you who read Genesis 28 know that when Jacob dreamed 
about his ladder he saw angels ascending and descending on that 
ladder.  Now, that ladder is a very apt picture of Jesus Christ, for 
the bottom of the ladder, the foot of the ladder, was on the ground on 
the earth, and the top of it "reached to heaven." That ladder is given 
as a picture of Jesus Christ because the Lord Jesus Christ is the only 
mediator who can stand on this earth with feet of clay as the Son of 
man born of a woman as a human being and at the same time put His hand 
into the hand of God the Father, the Almighty in glory, and get the 
two of you together.  That is why in I Timothy 2:5 the Bible says, 
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man 
Christ Jesus." Now, all other mediators or "go-betweens" have a 
glaring fault, and their glaring fault is the fact that although they 
can stand on feet of clay in the clay and dust from whence man came, 
they cannot fulfill the second part.  They cannot reach up with that 
sinful hand of clay and grasp the sinless hand of God Almighty.  So, 
the doctrine of the virgin birth is very important because it shows 
the only way Jesus could become a man without a sin nature was by a 
virgin birth.
   
Salvation is closely linked with this doctrine, for if Jesus was not 
born of a virgin, then you are still a lost sinner and so am I, and 
nobody I am talking to can be saved from anything.  After all, my 
friend, let's just look at it factually.  I mean, there's nothing like 
a good scientific approach to moral matters, is there?  (It's strange 
how objective and scientific some people get in dealing with matters 
of atoms and protons and neutrons and nuclei and plus and minus 
charges, and yet how haphazard they get in dealing with moral 
standards.)
   
If Jesus Christ had a father like you have then He was a sinner like 
you are; and if He died like you die and was buried like you are going 
to be buried, then do you know how He is going to come up?  He is not 
coming up.  You don't come up!  You stay down!
   
It is an undeniable truth.  The virgin birth is taught in the Bible.  
We accept the inspiration of the scriptures and believe this teaching 
is absolutely so.  It is an unchangeable truth.  The doctrine of the 
virgin birth stands with the scriptures and does not change with the 
changing times, thoughts and theories of mankind.  God is immutable.  
He won't change in these matters.  I don't care what science does or 
does not do.  The virgin birth is a doctrine that is taught in the 
word of God that does not change with the discoveries or 
nondiscoveries of man.  It is an urgent truth.  The doctrine is 
essential to the plan of salvation.  Without a virgin born Saviour the 
salvation of one soul is utterly impossible.  It is a Biblical truth.  
It is a mystery hidden in God.  You can't explain it to the 
satisfaction of a Bible rejector.
   
There is a sense, however, in which all life and birth is a mystery.  
I mean how can a tree put life into its seed?  People talk about these 
things and say, "Well, you have to accept that doctrine by faith." 
Land sakes, child, if you had a dollar for everything in life you have 
to accept by faith you could pay off your car.  Now, why you should 
think one mystery in the Bible, the virgin birth (because it's 
unexplainable from a rationalistic standpoint scientifically) is to be 
rejected is beyond me.  What about the other ones?
   
Do people reject the law of gravity and the law of magnetism?  You 
say, "Of course not.  They can be demonstrated." So can the virgin 
birth.  Five hundred eyewitnesses saw Him and committed their 
testimony to writing, and the laws of jurisprudence in the United 
States (when speaking about the credibility of a witness) say that if 
the eyewitness's testimony has been reduced to writing and no  
conclusive evidence to the contrary has been produced since that time 
then that evidence cannot be disannulled.  You say you can prove the 
law of magnetism and the law of gravity.  Well, you can prove them 
until you overthrow them by taking a plane off the ground that defies 
the law of gravity.  Or, you can disprove them by the fact that when 
you get down to the nucleus of an atom you find that the charges are 
not acting like they ought to as far as plus and minus charges go.  
Now, do you see how folks are?  They're the great ones to talk about 
"scientific laws" and "scientific objectivity" and "logical 
positivism" and "empirical scientificism" as long as they're dealing 
with stuff that doesn't deal with their depravity.  But, once you 
begin to talk about sin and sinful natures it's amazing how "bananas" 
some folks get!
   
Tell me something.  How do you explain the erratic boulders?  Glaciers 
don't pick up rocks that weigh seventy tons.  They go over them.  How 
do you explain a glacial cap climbing up Mt.  McKinley when glaciers 
never begin at altitudes less than 6,000 feet?  How do you explain 
polystratite fossils, huh?  How do you explain a tree found intact in 
four different layers if the layers were laid down through periods of 
millions of years?  Why, listen friend, if you think the only 
mysteries on this earth are the virgin birth of Christ and the deity 
of Christ, you ain't had much book learnin', son.  How do you explain 
the polar caps?  You say, "They froze." Five thousand feet deep in 
salt water??  Why, back East they put salt on the streets to get ice 
off the streets and you're telling me that rain comes down and freezes 
5,000 feet deep in salt water?  Hahaha, oh no, not today, friend, some 
other day!
   
You see, when you get started talking about the Bible mysteries, these 
"scientific" muckety-mucks always pop up and say, "Well, if you can't 
prove it by provable phenomena it's meaningless." Let me see you prove 
Darwin's theory by demonstrable phenomena.  I've been down at the 
Paluxy River bed in Glen Rose, Texas, and I have seen a dinosaur's 
prints and a man's footprints in the same strata and I've got 
photographs of them documented by geologists.  Don't tell me you can't 
believe the Bible just because you can't explain the virgin birth!  
Did you ever try to  explain loess deposits?  Explain ossiferous 
fissures.  Give me something, doctor.  How do you explain cracks in 
the earth's surface always found at high elevations where, when they 
dig in them, they find bones of animals that don't live together and 
bones of animals that are predatory and prey on each other.  How did 
they get in the same grave?  You see, educated people, as a class of 
people (I know there are exceptions and I'm not making a blanket 
condemnation), have a remarkable display of hypocrisy when it comes to 
Biblical mysteries.
   
The virgin birth is an unconditional truth.  Romans 10:9-10 says you 
are to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and if He had a human father He is 
not Lord, He's not Saviour.  "Immanuel" means God with us, and that's 
not true if God didn't pay a visit down here.
   
All this stuff about the "Chariots of the Gods" and all this business 
about "God rides a flying saucer," when you consider it, is nonsense!  
What would be the purpose of coming down to you and trying to find out 
where your electricity and water is and then blasting off a few rays 
and frying the ground if you were God?  What would be the point in 
that?  If you were God wouldn't you be primarily interested in solving 
men's problems?  What are men's problems?  Dying.  Sin.  "The wages of 
sin is death." Why, a God who would come down here and waste your time 
buzzing around in a flying saucer and shooting off rays wouldn't be 
worth giving the time of day to.  Whoever heard of such a waste of 
time?  Going up and down the Bermuda triangle and going in and out and 
shooting off rays and bumping into transport planes...what a bunch of 
nonsense!  Why, listen, that might be some Star War kook, but God?  
Immanuel?  "God with us?" Never!
   
Why, if there is a God up there He should be concerned about man's 
predicament as a sinner on his way to the grave, unable to have 
fellowship with God, unable to have eternal life.  That should be the 
occupation of God.  God should be preoccupied uith the pitiful 
condition of His lost creation, and God IS and was.
   
The God of the Bible is not some astronaut in a flying saucer--He's 
God.  And He was called Immanuel, which means "God with us":  God 
manifest in the flesh to take away our sins.  Paul said in I Timothy 
1:15, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that 
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners...." Not to contact 
the United Nations and talk to you about life on Venus!  Christ Jesus 
didn't come into this world to find you an electrical supply and put a 
blackout over your town by loading up His saucer so He could go back 
under the water with the zeros and the demigods and the lemurians.
   
Come on, son, get with it!  There are certainly more important matters 
than some nut getting to Venus or Mars and bringing back some dirt for 
you to look at to see if it's got enough amino acids to make a monkey 
out of.  I mean come on kid, get out of the kindergarten!  While you 
are getting to Venus, you are dying.  While you are getting to Mars, 
you are dying.  While you are going to the Moon, you are dying.  While 
you are fooling with the enzymes and amino acids, you are dying.  The 
problem is death!  "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
life:  and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the 
wrath of God abideth on him," John 3:36.  "These things have I written 
unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know 
ye have eternal life," I John 5:13.  That's the problem.  If there 
have been flying saucers here before, and there probably have, and if 
there has been anything from outer space, and there probably has been, 
and if there have been things from under the ground buzzing around, 
and undoubtedly there are, it wouldn't be worth it to give them the 
time of day.  For, after all, they don't know what the problem is and 
couldn't solve the problem even if they knew what it was.
   
Jesus Christ was not a phantom.  He was a real human being.  Truly 
"man," bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh.  In Philippians 2:7 He 
became our elder brother.  Jesus Christ was also "God manifest in the 
flesh" and remained God because of the Holy Ghost's conception.  Jesus 
Christ was sinless because He was virgin born without inheriting a 
fallen, sinful, corrupt human nature; that is, He was without what the 
theologians call "original sin." Now, there are objections to the 
doctrine.  Some people say, "Well, it's only found in a few places in 
the scripture." Well, after all, one scripture is sufficient.  But, 
the scripture is confirmed by Isaiah, Matthew and Luke; three writers, 
not one.
   
Some people object to the doctrine of the virgin birth and say Jesus 
did not personally claim to be virgin born.  Well, it is strongly 
inferred from John 6:51.
   
Scientists do not accept the virgin birth, for they say it is not 
biologically true.  Jesus did not come by natural conception but by a 
miracle conception according to the word of God.  The fact that 
scientists do not accept it because it is not "biologically true" is 
neither here nor there.  The Bible warns you to beware of "science 
falsely so called," I Timothy 6:20.  The Bible told you in I 
Corinthians 1:25 that the "foolishness of God is wiser than men," and 
the Bible told you plainly that God took "the wise in their own 
craftiness" (I Cor.  3:19) and the "Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, 
that they are vanity" (Ps.  94:11).  Therefore, if 150,000 scientists 
said it wasn't true because it wasn't "biologically true," it would 
mean absolutely nothing.  After all, "...the natural man receiveth not 
the things of the Spirit of God:  for they are foolishness unto him:  
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," I 
Corinthians 2:14.
   
Educated scholars reject the account of the virgin birth because it 
was miraculous; but, after all, all life is a miracle, wonderful and 
mysterious.  People who think it couldn't be accepted because it is a 
miracle, I wonder how they explain their own life?  "Well, 
biologically...." I didn't ask that.  They have to believe in the 
eternity of matter to believe that their life is not a miracle.  In 
order to try to say that everything is explainable and everything is 
rational and everything is phenomenally true that can be explained, a 
person has to believe in the eternity of matter.  A person has to 
believe that "in the beginning" there was no beginning.  Now you sit 
there and tell me you came from the seed of your father from the seed 
of his father from the seed of his father who was related to the 
Lemurians, do you?  Or was it the Leemoores or was it the Tarsioids or 
was it the "great apes" or the "hominoid apes," what was it?  And you 
came up there some way--"Once you were a tadpole and you began to 
begin, then you were a frog with your tail tucked in, next you were a 
monkey in a banyan tree, and now you're a doctor with a Ph.D." Now, 
you're to tell me you believe in that and don't believe in the virgin 
birth?  Do you mean to tell me this earth came from a solar system 
which came from a nebula that came from a star cluster that came from 
a dust cloud that came from a what?  You say, "Well, from gaseous 
matter." Which came from what?  You say, "It was just always there." 
Oh, come on, you trying to tell me your mind can grasp that?  I don't 
believe you.  I don't think for a minute your mind can grasp an 
eternal, infinite gaseous material that had no source and no 
beginning.  I don't think you believe that and I think if you believed 
it you couldn't prove it.  Now, who are you to talk about biology and 
the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?
   
You know, some of us have trusted Him as our Saviour and we know He is 
God because nobody can do for us what Jesus Christ did unless He was 
God.  We know experimentally that He was not an ordinary human being.  
We know it by scientific empiricism which some deny because of their 
"biological studies." People can object to the doctrine all they want 
to, but not on rational grounds.  Rationally, you can't explain your 
own beginning, let alone the beginning of Jesus Christ.
   
There is nobody that can find out how that great Darwinian leap or 
"great surge" suddenly occurred between an ape and man that made him 
suddenly start building fires.  I'd like to see you train any ape or 
monkey to cook over a fire or get close enough to light it with a 
match.  You see, some people profess to be educated just because they 
have had twenty years of college.  They're not thinking too clearly!  
If they thought clearly, they would know that something is wrong with 
their thinking.
   
People talk about "the eternity of matter." How can they conceive such 
a thing?  And if there was, don't you know the second law of 
thermodynamics, the law of entropy, would dictate that all of the 
earth would have fallen to pieces by now by disintegration if it had 
been here forever?  If the universe had been here for fifty billion 
years, my friend, it would have fallen apart at least 10 billion years 
ago.  The law of entropy teaches that simple forms never produce 
complex forms and never result or build up into complex forms, but 
disintegrate into simpler forms.
   
The law of the universe is that the sun is burning out--not burning 
up.  The earth is cooling off--not getting warmer.  The moon is 
dying--not growing.  Your car is heading for the junk heap--not for 
the new car lot.  All the laws of life and nature teach that nothing 
evolves--it develops and then degenerates.  When I say that I mean 
anything you just thought of or anything you read in any encyclopedia, 
Brittanica or Americana.  And people talk about the biological problem 
in the virgin birth, do they?  Aren't they something?  They're the 
ones who reject the miracles in the Bible because they can't explain 
them?  Aren't they something else?
   
Modern theologians do not accept the doctrine of the virgin birth, but 
that does not alter the fact that it is true, for it is taught in the 
Holy Scriptures.  It is taught in prophecy, and it was fulfilled in 
history.  That isn't all.  It is found to be true by the regenerated 
sinner who becomes a child of God by receiving the child that God 
begat.  And as a man said, "Though Christ be born in Bethlehem a 
million times, if he be not born in thee, thy soul is still forlorn."
   
Do you want to prove empirically the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?  I 
can tell you how to do it.  Get down on your knees and ask Buddha to 
save you and wash you in his blood and make you a new creature and get 
up and see if anything happens.  Then get down on your knees and ask 
Mohammed to save you and regenerate you and make you a child of God 
and get up off your knees and see if anything happens.  Then get down 
and call upon any ideology, any religion, any belief, any 
transcendental philosophy you were ever taught and see if when you get 
up you have two natures--one which loves the truth and is born again 
and comprehends Christ and believes the miracles of the Bible and 
believes in God and desires nothing more than to win others to Him and 
one which doesn't.  And if you don't get the desired results, get down 
on your knees and call upon the everlasting Lord God Almighty, the 
name that is above every name, the name under heaven given among men 
whereby we must be saved--ask the Lord Jesus Christ to save your soul 
and wash you in the blood and make you a new creature and regenerate 
you by His Holy Spirit, and THEN get up and see what happens!  After 
all, there's nothing like testing the hypothesis, is there, doctor?  
May the Lord bless you.