From the Philadelphia Inquirer (registration required):
Posted on Mon, Oct. 31, 2005
Some ask: Where did Jesus get his DNA?
By Faye Flam
Darwin's theory of evolution still stands out as the thorniest point of contention between science and religion, but other more recent scientific advances also raise new questions for believers.
How, for example, does the 20th century's biological revolution influence the Christian concept of virgin birth? Where did Jesus get his DNA? His Y chromosome?
A number of scientifically minded Christians have come forward during the Dover trial to say they accept that ordinary humans arose through purely natural processes, no intelligent design needed. But it's another thing to accept that the Lord and Savior was conceived through an act of sex.
For centuries it was understood that sex preceded pregnancy, but what exactly happened to create the baby was shrouded in mystery. Not until the 1600s, with the advent of the microscope, did scientists learn about the role of sperm in triggering development.
Sperm aren't always necessary, however. Some female lizards, fish, and other creatures can procreate through parthenogenesis (Greek for virgin birth). Cloning allows something similar in mammals.
But there's a problem with arguing that Jesus came about through cloning or parthenogenesis - he would have been born a girl. In the last few decades science revealed that to be male you need a Y chromosome and the only place you can get one is from a man.
"There's a big split over the Y chromosome issue," says Boston University theology professor Wesley Wildman. One thing Catholics and Protestants seem to agree on is that Jesus was fully human and male, so he must have carried the usual male quotient of DNA. It's not the Y chromosome he needed per se, but a gene called SRY normally carried on the Y.
Occasionally this male-making gene gets moved off the Y, giving rise to an infertile "XY" woman. In a few cases men are found to have two X chromosomes, but such "XX" males turn out to have this critical fragment of the Y stuck on one of the other chromosomes. That fragment of the Y has to come from a father.
Biology professor David Wilcox of Eastern University, a Christian college, said some aspects of reality may lie beyond the reach of science. "Of course Jesus had DNA and a Y chromosome - and the source for half of that DNA (and the Y chromosome) would presumably be a pure and simple miracle," he says.
Theology professor and ordained minister Ronald Cole-Turner said standard Christian thought attributes the virgin birth to God's intervention in the natural order, not a biological anomaly. "It's not God's sperm... but God created something like a sperm and caused it to fertilize Mary's egg," he says.
Wildman says it's not as big of a problem for Protestants like him to accept a non-virgin Mary as it is for Catholics who revere her. The Old Testament itself is ambiguous on the point, he says, since in the original Hebrew Mary is referred to as almah, a word that can mean virgin or young girl.
But a natural conception was problematic to early Christian thinkers, Wildman said, because St. Augustine and others believed original sin was passed on "through the male via the loss of control associated with the male orgasm."
That's why Catholic thinkers introduced the concept of immaculate conception, a term often misunderstood as the conception of Jesus, but which really refers to the conception of Mary herself. Her mother need not have been a virgin but somehow God blocked the passage of original sin.
But for Jesus, a miraculous manufacture of genetic material would imply there's a sequence of genetic code designed by God himself - God's own approved DNA. That would have big implications for those who believe in the premise of The Da Vinci Code - that Jesus had children and his lineage continues to the present day.
"The bottom line for me: I think the virgin birth is a mistaken belief," Wildman says. "I also think that this need have no impact whatsoever on Mary's and Jesus' moral and spiritual importance."
A non-virgin birth, however, would seem to raise the spiritual capital of sex.
The Holy Spirit released a statment that it is not the father and will fight any paternity charges...
This is actually a fine object lesson to use when attempting to show what's wrong with the logic behind "intelligent design". It's the exact same logic used to argue that a "miracle" is just as plausible as human sperm when explaining Jesus' conception. After all, the adoptive dad says he didn't do it, so we don't know who the father was. Ergo, it must have been an unseen supernatural intelligent inseminator.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
It's kind of pathetic on their part. They already have many miraculous incidents and other supernatural explanations; why can't they just say God said, "she will be done!" and Christ was conceived? It's at least cleaner than some weird pseudo-religious hybrid.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.” -Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." -Margaret Atwood
Guardsman Bass wrote:It's kind of pathetic on their part. They already have many miraculous incidents and other supernatural explanations; why can't they just say God said, "she will be done!" and Christ was conceived? It's at least cleaner than some weird pseudo-religious hybrid.
Envy and opportunism. Science makes religion look bad, since it has evidence and real accomplishments to point to. Trying to recast religious stories in scientific terms is simply an attempt to ride science's coattails. It's also an attempt to defuse those embarrassing questions the scientifically-minded ask.
It has long been a subject of great humour with me that one of the world's greatest religions hinges solidly on the mother of its god not just being a dishonest slut trying to avoid a lynching.
Note: I'm semi-retired from the board, so if you need something, please be patient.
Sperm aren't always necessary, however. Some female lizards, fish, and other creatures can procreate through parthenogenesis (Greek for virgin birth). Cloning allows something similar in mammals.
Don't you see? This is proof that we are ruled by alien lizards. They simply inserted the myth of virgin births into our mythologies to keep us in line. Opiate of the masses, and all that.
"Stop! No one can survive these deadly rays!"
"These deadly rays will be your death!"
- Thor and Akton, Starcrash
"Before man reaches the moon your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to England, to India or to Australia by guided missiles.... We stand on the threshold of rocket mail."
- Arthur Summerfield, US Postmaster General 1953 - 1961
I still like Mike's theory. Marry was into anal sex and some semen dripped onto her vagina.
Virgin births are recorded fact. Women who had very bad luck with sleeping in a bed where a man had a wet dream or women who had bad luck with anal sex.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Where did Jesus' DNA come from? Half of it from Mary obviously. Then God took one of Mary's egg cells and added in the missing DNA in a manner that was to his liking. The, now complete, egg cell implated itself in Mary's uterus and and she became pregnant.
Jesus of Nazareth: The worlds first genetically engineered human.
I remember being in highschool where I asked about the virgin Mary in religion class. I asked her why Mary was still a virgin after she was married with Josef for such a long time. I mean, don't tell me that after all those years they didn't had any sex. Wouldn't it be more logical if Josef *gasp* actually was the father
I got the reply that the virgin myth was added by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages (or maybe even later, can't really remember). If that's true than this article is nice proof of christian ignorance (wouldn't be the first time)
This article also goes to show how fucked up the King James translation is. There are many instances where someone screwed up and put the wrong word in (can't name any off the top of my head). Personally, I've always believed that Joseph knocked her up, and just denied it.
Alyeska wrote:I still like Mike's theory. Marry was into anal sex and some semen dripped onto her vagina.
Virgin births are recorded fact. Women who had very bad luck with sleeping in a bed where a man had a wet dream or women who had bad luck with anal sex.
Um, source?
My brother and sister-in-law: "Do you know where milk comes from?"
My niece: "Yeah, from the fridge!"
FTeik wrote:As already said, where does this Mary was a virgin originate?
And where did Joseph claim he wasn't the father?
From the book of Matthew.
Matthew 1:18-25 wrote:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
In the interest of full disclosure: verse 23 is a quote from Isaiah, and the word translated as "virgin" can also be translated as "young woman."
She did not answer, which is the damnedest way of winning an argument I know of.
Braedley wrote:This article also goes to show how fucked up the King James translation is. There are many instances where someone screwed up and put the wrong word in (can't name any off the top of my head).
Wildman says it's not as big of a problem for Protestants like him to accept a non-virgin Mary as it is for Catholics who revere her. The Old Testament itself is ambiguous on the point, he says, since in the original Hebrew Mary is referred to as almah, a word that can mean virgin or young girl.
What the hell? I was under the impression that the Old Testament as referred to by Christians was equal to the Five Books of Moses, aka the Jewish Torah. Neither Jesus nor Mary is mentioned at any point in them, since they were completed a couple of thousand years before.
Wildman says it's not as big of a problem for Protestants like him to accept a non-virgin Mary as it is for Catholics who revere her. The Old Testament itself is ambiguous on the point, he says, since in the original Hebrew Mary is referred to as almah, a word that can mean virgin or young girl.
What the hell? I was under the impression that the Old Testament as referred to by Christians was equal to the Five Books of Moses, aka the Jewish Torah. Neither Jesus nor Mary is mentioned at any point in them, since they were completed a couple of thousand years before.
The Old Testament includes the book of Isaiah, and the passage he refers to is Isaiah 7:14, which says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." The word which is translated "virgin" is ambiguous and can also be translated "young woman."
This particular passage is tricky in that it is one of those so-called double prophecies. Its primary meaning is as a sign from God to King Ahaz. Apparently at the time of Ahaz there is a young woman (not necessarily a virgin) who gives conceives and gives birth to a child. However, at the time of Jesus the prophecy is reinterpreted to have an additional meaning: it foretells the virgin birth of Christ.
Here is an extremely detailed explanation by a Jewish group that is opposed to the traditional Christian interpretation: http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html
She did not answer, which is the damnedest way of winning an argument I know of.
Braedley wrote:This article also goes to show how fucked up the King James translation is. There are many instances where someone screwed up and put the wrong word in (can't name any off the top of my head).
I've heard that the "witch" in "suffer not a witch to live" is a mistranslation of "poisoner".
Man, Mary must have been sizzlin' for God to take notice and fuck her. Bam!
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Matthew 1:18-25 wrote:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
In the interest of full disclosure: verse 23 is a quote from Isaiah, and the word translated as "virgin" can also be translated as "young woman."
wolveraptor wrote:Miller Lite: good enough for YHWH
After naming his kid Immanuel? The YHWH was definately a Corona man.
I personally feel that Wong's theory is the most likely, and thus propose that tests be performed ASAP to ascertain the viability of this hypothesis. Any volunteers?
MFS Angry Wookiee - PRFYNAFBTFC
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." -Richard Dawkins
I think the mistranslation explanation is much simpler. There never was any mention of Mary being a virgin. It was mistranslated, and then adopted as doctrine 'cause it made the story better. It's all about marketing: how best to convince someone that God incarnate has come to Earth? Why, say he had no father!
