Jesus maleness from a Virgin Birth

If we wish too affirm the historical reality of the Virgin Birth of Jesus we need to explain the biological change that enables the XX of Mary’s egg to form the YX of Jesus embryo without a male involvement. Does God just alter the chromosomes?

Did Jesus carry any of Mary’s genetic material?

1 Like

If we are affirming an actual virgin birth and conception by the Holy Spirit (immaculate or not), this is just a plain miracle. Do we need to draw free body or force diagram explaining how Jesus walked on water and violated buoyancy and gravity? It can’t be done. Supernatural events by definition do not have natural explanations.



Jesus is affirmed in Christian creeds to be both God and Man in real unity of both. As a human being he would have inherited her genes like we all received our genetic makeup from our parents. Our genes are the basis of all proteins that drive our the metabolism of every cell in our bodies.

Or miraculously he was also given Joseph’s genes or some generic male genes. Not being able to have Joseph’s genes would be a relic of outdated Christian thinking that Jesus couldn’t have inherited a sin nature from his male father. It’s all antiquated thinking based on a bad interpretation of the mythological garden story and taking Paul’s views on “the fall” as systematic, universal theological statements absolutely true and factual from God’s perspective.

You are trying to make a virgin birth natural. Jesus became fully human And in order for him to do so that must have been a divine miracle beyond comprehension and understanding.

Doesn’t mean God could not supernaturally create his genes. It’s a miracle by default. It might be interesting to speculate on the nature of Jesus’s genes from a faith perspective but as an objection this looks like it comes from an uncritical atheism website.



By the Spirit explains everything.

Yep. An eggfull. 23 haploid chromosomes.

1 Like

Affirming the historical reality and affirming it was miraculous are two separate affirmations. The only people who need a scientific explanation are those who deny it was a miracle. Which seems kind of silly, because a virgin birth in humans that produces a male would have to be a miracle, by definition.


How can you be sure?

1 Like

If it happened, then I’m sure. Otherwise God is lying again, like He does in the rocks, and obliterating His traces.

  • Ascertaining the biological relationship of two persons based on the quantity of genetic material that they have in common is, as I’ve been told, an inexact science.
    • Who “told” me that? Blaine T. Bettinger, at The Shared cM Project 3.0 tool v1
    • Based on his on-line “shared DNA/biological relationship” calculator, Bettinger offers a thingamajig that claims that a parent and child will share anywhere from 3,330 to 3,720 centiMorgans of autosomal DNA.
    • Assuming that Jesus actually was Mary’s biological son is just that: an assumption.
    • Are there alternative assumptions? Indubitably: some reasonable and some not so reasonable.
    • IMO, the OP is “a rabbit hole” which I have been aware of since my incorporation of DNA information in my genealogical research back around 2010 and which I have long since given up any desire to explore publicly in this or any other forum.
    • Consequence? Drawing boldness from the absence of Mark and Paul’s mention of Jesus’ birth, I don’t lose sleep over it.
    • I do, however, hold fast on the crucifixion, death by crucifixion, entombment, resurrection in the tomb, post resurrection sightings, AND ascension of Jesus. IMO, what use do I have for Bible without those claims?

But Mary was not a literal virgin.
The Protovegelum of James clearly says that Mary was a Vestel Virgin, who was sold off to an old man (Joseph) when she had finished her duties as a Virgin.

There are no miracles in the gospel stories, only misunderstandings.


  • Somebody needs to read the Proto-evangelium of James again… more carefully:
      1. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was big with child. And he smote his face, and threw himself on the ground upon the sackcloth, and wept bitterly, saying: With what face shall I look upon the Lord my God? And what prayer shall I make about this maiden? Because I received her a virgin out of the temple of the Lord, and I have not watched over her. Who is it that has hunted me down? Who has done this evil thing in my house, and defiled the virgin? Has not the history of Adam been repeated in me? For just as Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came, and found Eve alone, and completely deceived her, so it has happened to me also. And Joseph stood up from the sackcloth, and called Mary, and said to her: O you who hast been cared for by God, why have you done this and forgotten the Lord your God? Why have you brought low your soul, you that wast brought up in the holy of holies, and that received food from the hand of an angel? And she wept bitterly, saying: I am innocent, and have known no man. And Joseph said to her: Whence then is that which is in your womb? And she said: As the Lord my God lives, I do not know whence it is to me.
  • Which is, of course, the reason why the Proto-evangelium of James is included in the New Testament today. :rofl:

Yes, that is my understanding. Mary was an actual virgin in the infancy of James (written ca 150CE not by James).

And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history. And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory to ages of ages. Amen.

The biggest theological problem with this infancy account is it’s an obvious and blatant Christian forgery. They were a dime a dozen back then and quite a few made it into the cannon.


Well, the hyper-literal interpretation conflated with modern science would be that since Jesus is the new Adam, he must have the same DNA as Adam, so maybe is not related to Mary either. Egg donors and embryo transplants are common today where women give birth to unrelated children. Of course, the question remains, how did Eve get her genome? Duplication of Adam’s X and removal of his Y chromosome? Plus, where did the extra biomass come from, or was she just itty bitty? These are the problems of literalists. Thank God I do not have to worry about them as I see the scripture, as they are non-issues.


Bring on the weird:

“A 25-year-old virginal Japanese woman underwent surgery for an ovarian tumor that was diagnosed as a mature teratoma. A solid mass within the tumor was found to have a head, trunk, and extremities. Consequently, this mass was diagnosed as a mature fetiform teratoma (homunculus). Brain, eye, spinal nerve, ear, teeth, thyroid gland, bone, bone marrow, gut, trachea, blood vessels, and phallic cavernous tissue were confirmed microscopically.”

Am I reading that right? “Phallic cavernous tissue”? A spontaneous “male homunculus”?

1 Like

The stuff that comes out the woodwork eh?


The Y Chromosome came from a truncated X Chromosome.
I hold Christ virgin birth as God’s incarnation through Holy Spirit as an historical fact.
Not all Christians, especially in this forum, shares the same view.

1 Like

There is also the belief that it simply was not a miracle at all. But just like the verse it hyperlinks to , Jesus was born to a young woman. Virgin is not part of it. She was with someone before she was with Joseph, got pregnant. He was going to leave her, Angels stopped it. He stayed with her and waited until after Christ was born to “ get to know her” but that his birth was no more miracle based than the one being hyperlinked too.

I don’t have an opinion on it beyond realizing it could be miraculous or not. I think it’s mostly a issue for those who believe in the trinity. But not all Christians believe in the trinity. Many believe that in the same way the holy spirit reaches out to us, fills us up, works through us, it did the same in Mary’s son. That he was chosen to be filled by the holy spirit in a way that was different from everyone else and it never goes into detail why anymore than it goes into how the incarnation works for trinitarians.

For me it’s impossible to know if Jesus was intersex, or if Jesus was XY or XXY and so on.

1 Like

Not according to the accounts in Matthew and Luke. I also don’t understand the rationale of denying the virgin birth but affirming literal angels spoke with Joseph and stopped him from leaving her. If you are going to dump the virgin birth, dump the rest of the supernatural components of the birth stories as well.



“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.