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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).]

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).]

[/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

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.

Lance

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!

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.

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