Originally posted by lucifershammer
you are confused
Virgin birth is a confusing subject in general. I have found an enlightening (pro-Christian) web article which I generally concur with (http://www.athmaprakashini.com/virginbirth.htm). Careful reading of it should reveal why "parallellists" such as myself are justified in their views that Christ's birth echoes others (e.g. Horus) as well as why Christians are equally justified in claiming that Christ's birth is unique.
I'll paste in two definitions to get you started. Happy reading.
a. Virgin birth in general sense. In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary. The virgin birth story is ultimately not the story of a physiological quirk; it is the story of divinity entering the human experience by the only door- way available to it..3
In this general sense, the concept of virgin birth is found in most of the religions and secular traditions. It is found in the religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, and in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman and Hellenistic traditions.
b. Virgin birth in technical sense. In technical sense, virgin birth refers only to Jesus Christ and the manner in which He came into the world to save the sinful mankind. By this, scholars mean that Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary was not the result of sexual relationship.4 Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception, and continued so up to the point of the birth of Christ. Word of God clearly points that Joseph did not have sexual relationship with Mary "till she had brought forth her first-born son" (Matt. 1:25).