----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:26 AM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> At 10:58 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: > >Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >>At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > >> > >>>Not really. Virgin conception is impossible, > >> > >> > >>I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can > >>think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her > >>having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo > >>intacta_ to examination. > > > >I have heard that it's possible (but not entirely likely) for a woman to > >become pregnant after ejaculate gets just to the opening of the > >vagina. (The space that's enough for the menstrual flow to get out is > >certainly enough for some other fluid to get in....) That's a lot easier > >than implanting a pre-fertilized egg (and it's more likely to "take" and > >produce a live birth -- IVF isn't the most reliable way to get things done). > > > That is indeed one of the ways. Raymond Brown, in the "Birth of The Messiah" argues that this is a reasonable scenario. He discusses the theological reasons for including virgin birth in the infancy narratives...and thinks that they are not very convincing. There's other bits of evidence in scripture, like Jesus being called "the son of Mary" instead of "the son of Joseph" in Nazareth. He argues that there might have been some irregularities in the timing of the birth of Jesus. The obvious way for this to be possible, still allowing for Mary and Joseph to be honorable within their culture, is for Mary and Joseph to be fooling around after their betrothal but before "he took her into his home." According to Brown, this sort of activity for people who are betrothed was probably within social norms. Before I end this, I should do justice to Brown...in that he argued that Jesus' birth was probably somewhat irregular...with this as one possible explanation. Given the presence of Jesus' family in the early Christian church, it is reasonable to assume that some knowledge of the circumstances of his birth existed as the oral infant narratives were developed. Since it is probable that the Septuagint was the scripture used by the early church (it is multiply quoted after all) it would be reasonable to think that this passage would be related to Jesus by his followers. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
