FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2001, 09:35 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Virgin Birth: Theological Artificial Insemination?

The supposed virgin birth of Jesus Christ is so clearly parallel to pagan stories of miraculous conceptions that Christian apologists sometimes get indignant over that issue; they maintain that God / Holy Spirit did not have sex with Mary, but instead did the theological equivalent of artificial insemination or IVF or something like that.

But I wonder how much difference that *really* makes, since a miraculous conception is a miraculous conception. And why believe one miraculous-conception story but not another? Why believe in the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ and not that of Alexander the Great? Especially when Alexander the Great is *much* better documented than Jesus Christ.
 
Old 04-28-2001, 10:26 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The supposed virgin birth of Jesus Christ is so clearly parallel to pagan stories of miraculous conceptions that Christian apologists sometimes get indignant over that issue; they maintain that God / Holy Spirit did not have sex with Mary, but instead did the theological equivalent of artificial insemination or IVF or something like that.

But I wonder how much difference that *really* makes, since a miraculous conception is a miraculous conception.</font>
The primary concern of the apologists here I would imagine is the anthropomorphism of God. God did not have a physical body before that of Jesus, so how could he possibly have had sex with Mary? If God was to impregnate Mary then it must therefore have been spiritual and not physical.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And why believe one miraculous-conception story but not another? Why believe in the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ and not that of Alexander the Great?</font>
I think you'd have to go a long way to find anyone living today who believes Alexander was actually a god or the son of a god. If you don't believe in his claim to godship, it seems unlikely you'd believe in his miraculous conception. With Jesus, again if you don't think he was the incarnation of God then you're hardly going to believe in his miraculous conception. But if you believe then the story of the miraculous conception remains a possibility.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Especially when Alexander the Great is *much* better documented than Jesus Christ.</font>
I don't mean to start an argument on this subject, (after all what does it matter who was more well documented?) but I seem to recall that the earliest extant source on Alexander's life is Plutarch, who wrote over 300 years after Alexander's death. Am I remembering correctly - I may well be wrong here?
 
Old 04-29-2001, 01:07 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I think the virgin birth is a very interesting, albeit rather inconsequential, part of Christian Religious discussion. I am, however, poorly informed.

There seem to be large number of very informed scholars on biblical history involved in these forums. I would be very interested to hear about the study of the virgin birth from the context of the original manuscripts and sources.
 
Old 04-29-2001, 01:39 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Maybe I overstated myself when I mentioned Alexander the Great, but Richard Carrier has discussed a similar question: the existence and career of Julius Caesar. And he finds tons more evidence for Julius Caesar's existence than Jesus Christ's. Although our main sources on Alexander the Great are more removed in time, they are generally considered fairly reliable, and there is such ground-zero evidence as coins.

And when did the Virgin Birth start to become a peripheral Christian dogma, as opposed to a central one?

Richard Carrier had written an essay called "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection", which appears in the Modern section of the Library part of this site; it refers to his discussion of the relative historicity of these two JC's.


[This message has been edited by lpetrich (edited April 29, 2001).]
 
Old 04-29-2001, 05:38 AM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lpetrich:
And when did the Virgin Birth start to become a peripheral Christian dogma, as opposed to a central one?
</font>
Hmm... is it me that suggested it is peripheral? I guess so. I suppose what I meant was, in a long line of things I think are worthy of discussion about christianity, "Was Jesus' mother a virgin" is lower on the list that a lot of other questions such as "Is there a god?" etc. Lower, that is, in terms of the Grand Sceme of Things (GSOT). For me, it is more interesting than the other bits, since every likes to rant and rave about the rest. Besides, I am interested in the literary stuff, not people's personal belief.

It also seems to me, as an outsider, of less importance to most Christian groups, other than Catholocism, than these other points.

But I guess every miracle gains the side points, eh?



[This message has been edited by TheCandle (edited April 29, 2001).]
 
Old 04-29-2001, 06:02 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[/QUOTE] I don't mean to start an argument on this subject, (after all what does it matter who was more well documented?) but I seem to recall that the earliest extant source on Alexander's life is Plutarch, who wrote over 300 years after Alexander's death. Am I remembering correctly - I may well be wrong here?[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, if you bop around the Alexander sites on the web, you'll soon find that there is stuff from his own time, inscriptions, coins, etc. No texts, though, just fragments incorporated into other texts.

Here's a list of sources -- i don't want to argue either. But these listed here are just texts.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hca/classics/alexsources.htm

Apparently even letters from him survive:

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/Chios/Alexander.html

Michael
 
Old 04-29-2001, 11:09 AM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Or, could it be that the miraculous conception was a spiritual conception and that Jesus was a spiritual existence imparted on a physical human being. This would also explain the dual nature of Jesus.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 11:00 AM   #8
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS USA
Posts: 335
Cool

Most likely, it was the creative explanation of a young girl who dropped her drawers for the wrong guy at the wrong time.

She should have stuck to the Monica technique, less risky!
Lance is offline  
Old 04-30-2001, 11:04 AM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lpetrich:
Maybe I overstated myself when I mentioned Alexander the Great, but Richard Carrier has discussed a similar question: the existence and career of Julius Caesar. And he finds tons more evidence for Julius Caesar's existence than Jesus Christ's. Although our main sources on Alexander the Great are more removed in time, they are generally considered fairly reliable, and there is such ground-zero evidence as coins.

[This message has been edited by lpetrich (edited April 29, 2001).]
</font>
What is this obession with coins? Because someone is on a coin they existed? Whereas even though Jesus is mentioned by numerous letters and books within the first century, it is reasonable to question his existence?

So I guess God must exist because he's mentioned on our coins?

Why do you guys find coins so conclusive? Seriously.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 01:49 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Why coins? Because coins often contain the names of leaders that other sources describe as having existed.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:36 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.