What is the evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? How could this be known with any certainty in ancient times?

The closest thing we have today to virgin birth is somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning as in Dolly the sheep where an unfertilized egg and somatic cells are used to create an embryo.

Thank you.

Ray,

The evidence is the two stories in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. Luke likely got his story from Mary (the mother of Jesus) herself, though Matthew's source is unclear. It appears to be Joseph's (Jesus' stepfather) version of the events, but Matthew probably never met Joseph (Joseph apparently died before Matthew met Jesus), so he probably got it from someone who knew Joseph, probably a friend of the family.

As for how Matthew and Luke knew the stories were true, I'm sure they just took their sources' words for it. They certainly weren't witnesses to the events. I know a lot of people look at the story and say "but that's impossible!", but if we're talking about God, who is capable of creating the universe, parting the Red Sea, and resurrecting Jesus, creating a fertilized egg isn't too much of a challenge.

David

Thanks, David, for replying to my question. This is hearsay you chose to believe by faith? Did you know that Mithras and Alexander the Great claimed virgin births? I don't see how this could possibly be known or proved.

Why is Jesus referred to so often as the "Son of Man" if he was the "son" of god? Also why in the synoptic gospels (can't remmber which one it was) is care taken to trace Jesus' geneology to Abraham and King David if Joseph was not his father? It seems to me he wouldn't be related to anyone but Mary and god and this would all be unnecessary.

I followed yours and other arguments on Horus similarity to Christ websites. It seems that Isis revived Osiris just long enough for them to conceive Horus, so it was not a virgin birth, but rather miraculous given the part of Osiris that was missing. I have seen the madonna and child drawings in Egyptian tombs and visited Horus' supposed birthplace in the Temple of Isis in Egypt.

From what I've studied so far it seems to be that Christianity is a mishmash of other religions and theologies. The only truly unique feature I can detect is that instead of man sacrificing to god, god sacrified to man. Almost every human culture has at sometime practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, not to get food, but power........."the body and blood Christ" in communion is a symbolic retooling of this idea.

I am an agnostic who doesn't for one minute believe in gods/goddesses/virgin births, etc., but find the subject fascinating and can't figure out why you believe what you do. Anyway, I do appreciate your sharing your "evidence" with me. Have you ever had some kind of religious experience which gives you certainty? When I did biofeedback for ovarian cancer many years ago I "saw" my soul. Do you believe me?

Thanks, Ray

Thanks, David, for replying to my question. This is hearsay you chose to believe by faith?

All ancient history is hearsay that we choose to believe by faith. But believing some things is more logical than believing in others. The Gospel accounts were written soon enough after the events, are internally consistent enough, give me enough reason to suppose that the authors weren't lying, and have enough manuscript support to convince me that what we have now is close enough to what was actually written by the authors, that I think my NOT believing them would take more faith than my believing them.

Did you know that Mithras and Alexander the Great claimed virgin births?

No, they didn't. They both claimed MIRACULOUS births, for sure, but neither claimed their mother was a virgin. In most versions of the Mithra story, he has no mother, but is formed within a solid rock. Alexander's mother, Olympias, was married to Phillip in the story where Zeus, in the form of a snake, impregnates her, and there's no reason to suppose that Phillip and Olympias hadn't consumated their marriage yet.

Why is Jesus referred to so often as the "Son of Man" if he was the "son" of god?

To identify his affinity with mankind.

Also why in the synoptic gospels (can't remmber which one it was) is care taken to trace Jesus' geneology to Abraham and King David if Joseph was not his father? It seems to me he wouldn't be related to anyone but Mary and god and this would all be unnecessary.

Because Joseph was Jesus' adopted father, which had legal, historical and spiritual significance. That was Matthew's Gospel, by the way.

I followed yours and other arguments on Horus similarity to Christ websites. It seems that Isis revived Osiris just long enough for them to conceive Horus, so it was not a virgin birth, but rather miraculous given the part of Osiris that was missing.

And I agree that it was a miraculous conception, and that this is somewhat of a comparison to Jesus (but if you take any two figures in history or in myth, you'll find some comparisons between them). The fact that most "Christ-Mythers" feel the need to pretend Horus, and other deities, had a "virgin birth" must mean that they don't find the "miraculous conception" similarity very striking, either.

I have seen the madonna and child drawings in Egyptian tombs and visited Horus' supposed birthplace in the Temple of Isis in Egypt.

ALL people had a mother and a birthplace, so pictures of Horus with his mother and a "birthplace" aren't even a little bit significant.

From what I've studied so far it seems to be that Christianity is a mishmash of other religions and theologies.

From what I've studied, it's not. Over 90% of the Christ-myther claims cannot be found in any version of the story that they're claiming it appears in, or have any support from non-Christ-Myther scholars. If the evidence really suggested that Jesus borrowed from previous religions, why are so many people feeling the need to make up false comparisons?

The only truly unique feature I can detect is that instead of man sacrificing to god, god sacrified to man.

There's also the virgin birth (as in, the mom is actually a virgin), the baptism, the driving out of the money changers, the trial before the religious authorities, the crucifixion, the finding of the empty tomb, and many other things.

Almost every human culture has at sometime practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, not to get food, but power........."the body and blood Christ" in communion is a symbolic retooling of this idea.

Human sacrifice is part of the Old Testament (though not ordained by God), and the 'body and blood Christ' has nothing to do with actual cannibalism - it's simply symbolic.

I am an agnostic who doesn't for one minute believe in gods/goddesses/virgin births, etc., but find the subject fascinating and can't figure out why you believe what you do. Anyway, I do appreciate your sharing your "evidence" with me. Have you ever had some kind of religious experience which gives you certainty?

No. I believe in God because of the orderliness and apparent purposefulness of our world, and in Jesus because of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts.

When I did biofeedback for ovarian cancer many years ago I "saw" my soul. Do you believe me?

Hard to say. I don't think you're lying to me (you could be, but I won't assume it), but I don't believe the soul can be seen with the natural eyes. It's possible that you had some sort of spiritual vision in which your soul was revealed to you or something like that, but that's the kind of thing that would be hard to differentiate from a simple hallucination. So I'd say that maybe you did, and maybe you didn't.

Thanks for writing,

David

David,

I'm very impressed with your knowledge of ancient mythologies and don't doubt your honesty in relating the examples you do. Where we probably part company is on their interpretation and significance. I am no expert on these subjects, but I did focus on historiography as a history graduate student and it was the basis of my teaching career.

Since my hands are like paws, I will certainly rely on your input. Like you, I don't see all of the Horus/Christ parallels, Osiris, his father was the one who died and was resurrected every year and the story about the snake and Alexander's mother rings a bell.

I guess my point was that there are many rites, events, practices, dates and concepts that are not unique to Christianity. You would agree, I hope, that in Greek and Roman mythology Zeus and other gods made a practice of impregnating humans.

Re human sacrifice I did say the Eucharist was a "symbolic" retooling of this practice, although I think Catholics believe it is literally true, much the same way Eastern Orthodoxy sees icons as the actual real being. This led to split of the church in 11th century - iconoclastic controversy

John 6:51-56 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.....etc. etc.

As a former college teacher of art history, I would have to disagree with you that artistic images are unimportant. People couldn't read so a picture really was worth a thousand words. Also, we can date works of art by their subject matter. For example, we know art is early Christian if Christ is depicted carrying a lamb around his shoulders, like Mithras and some Egyptian statues were. The cross and Mary didn't appear til later.

I just want to make sure I understand why you believe what you do.

1. There is no difference between ancient history and mythology.

2. Other mythologies are simply untrue and Christianity is true because it is more logical and purposeful.

3. The gospels, although not primary sources, were written soon enough after the events to be true.

4. The gnostic gospels are simply false.

5. The bible is the literal word of god????

6. Anything you want to add or correct?

Thank you so much, David.

If these conclusions are true about your beliefs, did you reach them by inductive or deductive reasoning?

Ray

PS - if you do a search on 'Mickey has two moms" you might find the research where mice had 2 moms, 2 dads

I guess my point was that there are many rites, events, practices, dates and concepts that are not unique to Christianity.

As far as rites, practices, and dates, those are all things that exist outside of the story of the Historical Jesus. That people celebrate Jesus the way other people celebrate other dieties, and whether they borrow rites, practices and dates, has no bearing on the question of whether or not Jesus existed or the events the Bible describe actually happened. As far as events and concepts (as in comparing the events and concepts of the Gospel stories to events and concepts of the stories of other deities), there are some similarities, but that would be true if we compared any two stories, fictional or historical. Like if we compare the story of Abraham Lincoln to the story of John F. Kennedy, we'd see a lot of the same events and concepts. It's just a question of whether the events and concepts are so strikingly similar to suggest that one literally borrowed from the other, and I'd say the evidence does not suggest that the Jesus story borrowed from any pre-Christian mythology. The fact that "Christ Mythers" make so much stuff up suggests that they don't find the real comparisons very striking, either.

You would agree, I hope, that in Greek and Roman mythology Zeus and other gods made a practice of impregnating humans.

I do agree, and consider it a comparison point. But I don't find it so striking as to suggest that the Gospel authors were borrowing from it. You find a lot of fictional stories in which the main character is an orphan, but that doesn't mean that if I come across an apparently-true story about a person who is an orphan, I would conclude that this story borrowed from fictional "orphan" accounts. Sometimes things that happen in real life do compare to things that happen in fiction.

As a former college teacher of art history, I would have to disagree with you that artistic images are unimportant. People couldn't read so a picture really was worth a thousand words. Also, we can date works of art by their subject matter. For example, we know art is early Christian if Christ is depicted carrying a lamb around his shoulders, like Mithras and some Egyptian statues were. The cross and Mary didn't appear til later.

All I'm saying is that comparisons in artwork don't suggest that one story borrowed from another. If an early Christian artist was inspired by a piece of art showing Mithras carrying a lamb, I can see why he might decide to make a piece of art showing Jesus carrying a lamb. But all it proves is that artists are inspired by earlier artwork, as everyone already knows. It doesn't suggest that the Jesus story itself (in which there's never a scene in which Jesus carries a lamb) borrowed from mythology.

I just want to make sure I understand why you believe what you do.

1. There is no difference between ancient history and mythology.

There's absolutely a difference between the two. History is what really happened and mythology is what people simply pretend happened. There is no reason to suppose that the people writing the Gospels were writing mythology and not history.

2. Other mythologies are simply untrue and Christianity is true because it is more logical and purposeful.

Mythologies are, by definition, untrue. But I would say that Christianity (that is, the Gospel accounts) is true because the historical evidence suggests that it is true.

3. The gospels, although not primary sources, were written soon enough after the events to be true.

No, they were definitely primary sources. Two of the four (Matthew and John) were written by eyewitnesses, and the other two (Luke and Mark) were only once-removed from eyewitnesses on most things. And I think instead of saying they were "written soon enough after the events to be true", I would say they were written soon enough after the events that their authors, and their audiences, had to have known whether the events were true or not. Meaning that if the Gospels were intended to be mythology, then the authors and other early Christians had to have known it was all mythology. And the historical evidence strongly suggests that early Christians did not consider the events described by the Gospels to be mythology, but believed the events to have actually happened.

4. The gnostic gospels are simply false.

They definitely weren't written by their credited authors, since they were written about a hundred years after their credited authors died (which suggests that the actual authors were attempting to deceive their audience). And they weren't written by eyewitnesses, since no eyewitnesses could have lived to the time that the gnostic gospels were written (they would have been at least 150-200 years old). And where eyewitness and non-eyewitness accounts disagree, I would definitely favor the eyewitness accounts.

5. The bible is the literal word of god????

"literal"? No. Obviously God didn't write the Bible Himself, but it was written by at least forty different people over a span of almost 2000 years, and it clearly contains some parables (Job, obviously - I also take much of the early stuff in Genesis to be parables). I believe that God inspired the entire Bible, though, and that everything in it was written honestly, that no author made an attempt to deceive his audience.

If these conclusions are true about your beliefs, did you reach them by inductive or deductive reasoning?

Your conclusions weren't completely true, but I'd say my beliefs were mostly reached by inductive reasoning, though I admit that I use deductive reasoning when considering the "opposing claims" that some skeptics come up with to deny the resurrection (like those who claim the resurrection appearances were hallucinations, or mistaken identity, etc.).

David

David, I won't argue with you. Am still trying to understand the appeal of this mythology of yours.

History is not what about what really happened, on the graduate level anyway, it is about interpretations or the meaning of what really happened. None of the gospels or any of the Bible passes the smell test as a "primary" source. The Mormon or LDS church comes closest with Joseph Smith and the verifiers of his "translation" of the golden tablets provided by the angel Moroni. The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price far exceed the Bible in dullness, poor writing, outrageous acts, etc. but many people really sincerely believe they are true.

Are you telling me that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John knew and wrote the gospels in Greek?

But forgetting all these inconveniences, the virgin birth thing cannot be proven, it's not exactly like turning water into wine.  I did learn that the immaculate conception has to do with Mary's being born without sin and is a confused/confusing concept in Catholic theology. There is some discussion about the fact that there is no tomb or burial site for her despite the Catholic love of saint's bones. (maybe she didn't die, or didn't live).

Also found another discussion of the Hellenistic period (as much like our own changing times). A time when people went from group to indivivdual identification, making death more feared. The Christian formula for death does appeal to many people. Today we experience virtual realities and can communicate like spirits on the web. Matter has been defeated!!!

Thanks, David, I appreciate your thoughts.

Ray

David, I won't argue with you. Am still trying to understand the appeal of this mythology of yours.

There's little, if any, reason to believe that the Gospels were intended to be mythology. If it was mythology, then the authors and their audience almost certainly knew it was, yet the historical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they believed that the Gospel events happened. We know that many died rather than deny it, and Paul wrote that if the resurrection didn't actually happen, then the faith of Christians was in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). That's not the kind of response people have to known mythology.

History is not what about what really happened, on the graduate level anyway, it is about interpretations or the meaning of what really happened.

No, History refers to the events themselves. That students at the graduate level study the interpretations and meanings behind the events doesn't change that, they're just studying the interpretations and meanings of history.

None of the gospels or any of the Bible passes the smell test as a "primary" source.

Then I need to know what you mean by a "primary" source. If an eyewitness account of a series of events (such as Matthew and John's gospels) doesn't equal a "primary" source, then "primary" doesn't mean much. You don't get more primary than that.

The Mormon or LDS church comes closest with Joseph Smith and the verifiers of his "translation" of the golden tablets provided by the angel Moroni. The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price far exceed the Bible in dullness, poor writing, outrageous acts, etc. but many people really sincerely believe they are true.

I don't doubt that many believe that they are true, but I feel that, unlike with the Gospels, the evidence suggests that most of the events Smith wrote about probably never happened.

Are you telling me that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John knew and wrote the gospels in Greek?

That or, more likely (especially for Matthew and Mark), their words were translated into Greek. Being the main scholarly language of the day (fellow Jewish historian Josephus' texts were in Greek), it was the logical language for the Gospels.

But forgetting all these inconveniences, the virgin birth thing cannot be proven, it's not exactly like turning water into wine.

I agree that the evidence is weaker for the virgin birth than it is for the resurrection, since neither Matthew nor Luke could possibly have been witnesses to the virgin birth, and Matthew's source is completely unknown (he's telling Joseph's version of events, yet almost certainly never met Joseph). Luke's source appears to be Mary herself, making it, in my opinion, quite trustworthy. I also trust Matthew's account since he clearly had a different source, yet came up with a story that corresponds to Luke's version of events, meaning that, whoever Matthew's source was, it appears to be someone who knew what happened.

For something to be considered a part of history, the event does not have to be "proven", since very little that happened in ancient times can be proven. It's only a question of whether the source writing about the event can be trusted or not. There's a lot of ancient history that we have only a single source for (i.e. Tacitus or Josephus), yet historians consider the source trustworthy enough that they generally accept the events as factual. For the virgin birth, we have two apparently independent sources, and for the resurrection, we have four.

I did learn that the immaculate conception has to do with Mary's being born without sin and is a confused/confusing concept in Catholic theology. There is some discussion about the fact that there is no tomb or burial site for her despite the Catholic love of saint's bones. (maybe she didn't die, or didn't live).

It's just a question of whether the evidence suggests that she lived, and it does. You say that maybe she didn't live. I guess anything's possible, but if you want to convince me, or anyone, that she didn't live, you need some kind of good evidence for it. A simple lack of a known burial site isn't significant. If it was, we'd be doubting the existence of almost everyone from that time.

David