Steve (from Rylands Community Church) has written: "I think the bible teaches very clearly that Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, and that Joseph clearly recognised that he was not Jesus’ biological Father. To say otherwise leads into all sorts of ancient heresies, but if you want a good defense of my position then Athanasius on the Incarnation would be a good place to start. If you can show me that the Bible doesn’t teach the Virgin birth - I’d happily listen to you - but normally those that oppose such a position don’t so on the grounds of scripture but because of previous underlying presuppositions, that rule it out."

Steve, you say you will listen if I can show "that the Bible doesn’t teach the Virgin birth". That depends on what you mean by "teach". My claim is not that the Bible doesn't assert it, but:
-- THESIS 1. that it is not KEY (essential) to the Good News, but peripheral (non-essential), and
-- THESIS 2. that this distinction matters.

THESIS 1.

I read Athanasius long ago, and long shared the widespread view of his as a classic formulation, but I think I am wiser now. Take his first mention of "virgin". "He took our body, and not only so, but he took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father; a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man." The casting of Christian beliefs into forms prepared by Mediterranean Paganism with its body-soul dualism, and the denigration of venery (and by implication of vitality in general), are plain. "Stainless virgin"? A human father would have corrupted him? A thousand times, no! (The very use of Latin "incarnatio" gives the game away; it indicates an entering INTO flesh from outside, implying that only his soul is God, not his body, and seems to have no Greek original, suggesting a late coinage. "Carnificatio" is more in line with the earliest sources (including John 1); it indicates a BECOMING flesh, so that his body IS God, and does have a Greek original, "sarkosis".)

You have somewhat conflated three propositions. From most cautious to least:
--(1) Christ had no human father.
--(2) His mother was virgin when he was conceived.
--(3) His mother was virgin until he was born.

I think that these are all true, so clearly I have no "presuppositions, that rule it out".

At the same time I see no way in which denying any of them "leads into all sorts of ancient heresies", however many ancient heretics denied them. I think you must be confusing cause with effect, or correlation with relation. But let us explore them (in reverse order).

(3) (the "Virgin Birth" as such) is about Christ's mother's life AFTER he was conceived, so cannot be key (unless you think that her receiving sperm during the embryo's development would have interfered with it in some essential way). Not every fact that merits mention in a Gospel also merits inclusion in a creed, and I see no reason to include this one. But Mediterranean Paganism was keen on its virgin goddesses. As Spengler says, "When the Council of Ephesus had recognized the mother of God ... the city of Diana ... burst [into] celebration."

Maybe you will say, "Virgin Birth is just the traditional phrase. Perhaps the essential point could be expressed more precisely, but the traditional phrase is handy and harmless. Little would be gained by changing it." I half agree. At least I agree that moving from (3) to (2) would achieve little. But that is because (2) has most of the same drawbacks as (3).

(2), apart from its role in confirming (1), also cannot be key, for similar reasons. If Christ's mother, weeks before she conveived him, had received sperm (dead within five days), it might tell us a lot about her, but not about Christ, so cannot matter to us once we are free of that Pagan virginity cult.

Moving from (2) to (1) would be big progress, discarding the wrapper to display the gift. Perusers would be induced to think more clearly about what matters. Pagan themes like those harboured by Athanasius would be denied at least this item of food.

(1) remains, and I see no reason to regard even this as key.

I repeat: not every fact that merits mention in a Gospel also merits inclusion in a creed. The Bible gives many details that we all agree are peripheral, including miracles, so if you think that this detail is one of the few that ARE key, the burden of proof is on you to show why. But I will explore some ideas.

Do we inherit sin patrilineally? What about humans cloned (spontaneously or otherwise) from a mother (as is perfectly feasible)? I think this refutes the "paternal spiritual lineage" theory. (Incidentally, what I say here is perfectly consistent with "Male Headship".)

Is having a human father incompatible with deity in some other way? I see no reason why. The "therefore" in Luke 1:35 refers to the FACT of miracle; I see no evidence that it refers to the MODE of that miracle. (Luke's logic seems to be as follows. (A) How will I conceive? (B) God will arrange it. (C) God's involvement shows that the child will be special. It is not implied that only THIS kind of divine arrangement could yield such a special child, as opposed to the kind that enabled Abraham's Sarah or Elkanah's Hannah to conceive children who were special in lesser ways.)

Are certain human genomes incompatible with deity? Certainly not! Every human is compatible with deity. To deny it would constitute what they call "racism". In THAT sense (his genome), Christ is nothing special, he is "like his brethren in every respect". It was not his genome that enabled him to be God; "he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him".

Are certain genomes incompatible with saving and elevating the world in some other way? I see no reason why.

Were certain genes that were absent from both Christ's mother and her prospective mate useful in enabling him to develop his exceptional eloquence and wit, which enabled him to express the Good News more effectively? Genes so numerous that to induce them (as mutations) during fertilisation would have been so drastic that it was in some sense "better" to dispense with the sperm altogether? Maybe, but if so, these abilities that helped PUBLISH the Good News (as do the abilities of his followers) are not PART OF the Good News. Or maybe it was just "a way to make a point", like some of his adult miracles. Either way, I see no reason to include this miracle in a creed any more than other miracles.

"This is all too narrow", I hear you say. "Christ's birth was not an isolated event but a fulfilment of prophesy, and that IS key." Maybe. But having no human father was not a significant element of those prophesies. Probably not an element at all, for Isaiah most likely had no such intention. On the face of it Matthew seems to think he did, but that is exactly one verse, and may be taken otherwise. Not a very broad or solid basis, however you look at it. If we want to highlight the fulfilment of prophesy, we would do better to mention with Paul that Christ was "descended from David". (Paul seems to know nothing of the spermless conception despite having conferred with Rocky Simon, suggesting that it was not part of the original "kerugma", probably not even known to any of the Twelve, but a detail mentioned by Mariam in her old age to Luke during his "all things closely" fact-finding tour after Paul's death.)(Similarly for Josef's point of view in Matthew, though there the authorship seems less clear.)

THESIS 2.

In a creed, peripheral items inevitably DISTRACT attention from the key Items and DISTORT the overall balance, and these are reasons why any new creed is better without "Item 4A", and why the Creed for Real Christianity omits it. The same factors are benefits of "pruning" this Item from any established creed, but such pruning also incurs costs (the costs of change). I make no attempt here to weigh those costs, but will describe the distortion that this Item creates.

I preach not signs but a suffering Mediator. If our creed mentions his having no human father, he shares the focus with signs. Any focus on signs encourages the kind of legendary worldview that Paul fought so vehemently in Corinth. Historically, the tradition of including Item 4A in creeds certainly began in such a worldview. How neatly the Pagan heroes were "baptised" into "saints", their legends into "miracles"! I have already mentioned how "the Virgin Mary" inherited the role of Diana. DO PONDER THIS: Item 4A is not in "the historic creeds" simply because the Bible mentions it; it was selected FOR A REASON, and that reason was Pagan not evangelical. The paganisation of the ekklesia began before 100 CE (even infecting the misnamed "Apostles' Creed") and proceeded not by contradicting or supplementing the Bible but by selection, emphasis, interpretation and connotation.

(In that sense, Christ's resurrection is not an indicator (sign); it is the indicated. This is why Paul could casually and generically dismiss signs while holding the resurrection central. (I think NT never calls the resurrection sign, wonder or miracle ("dunamis", "mighty work"), but vocabulary may vary and my point stands anyway.))

In general, another good reason to prune a creed is that peripheral Items "exclude" anyone who accepts all the key points but rejects a peripheral one. But in the present case you might object that "This cannot occur; anyone who doubts Item 4A is (by that very fact) doubting a key point, namely Biblical Inerrancy, so excluding them is the right outcome, and no harm done". Assuming that Biblical Inerrancy is indeed key, this objection is logical, so I let it stand, but pray do not let this blind you to the previously-mentioned benefits of pruning this Item, which also stand.

(Small point. I assume that you intended "virgin mother" merely to convey (3), but even so I dislike the phrase. For one thing, in one ordinary sense of the word ("intact") she presumably stopped being a virgin when she gave birth, and never was the virgin mother of a breathing human. More importantly, using the phrase fuels the assumption (whether deliberately fostered or passively inhaled from those old Pagan tropes) that she continued virgin thereafter (maybe even in both senses), and that there was some special sanctity or status in it. You may deplore that assumption as much as I do, but I see no need to fuel it.)