It does make you wonder. The author appears to have some believable credentials. ; - )
1 Like
@LM77 @Christy @Dale @SkovandOfMitaze
This is not a reply for Terry_Sampson’s benefit since he doesn’t read my posts.
Correct. I don’t believe anyone is claiming that Jesus was born only of a woman.
Incorrect. The incarnation and the virgin birth are two distinct theological claims. And nowhere does the Bible or Christian theology say anything about them being “abiogenetic.” Certainly neither of those theological claims require Jesus to be abiogenetic.
We now know… scientific fact, that a virgin most certainly can give birth. Conception does not require sexual intercourse but only fertilization. Google search will show you that virgin births have indeed happened in scientifically controlled and documented cases.
As for the incarnation, science cannot say anything whatsoever about that. For me it is simply that an all powerful God can be anything He chooses, including a helpless human infant in a particular portion of space-time.
I just explained it and no fancy footwork was required. Neither the incarnation nor the virgin birth are in any way in conflict with science.
So… how did the sperm get in there??? I don’t know the answer to that any more than I know exactly what happened when Jesus walked on water, fed the 5000, or turned water into wine. None of us know that. But I personally don’t think any wizardry or necromancy was involved… no laws of nature broken… and that includes no DNA simply appearing out of thin air. I don’t believe it. The Bible seems to suggest that it came from Joseph… just saying… But even if it came from Joseph, it doesn’t mean Mary wasn’t a virgin… it is those scientific facts of the matter again…
1 Like
Agree. The Incarnation is the doctrine that God was made human. The Virgin Birth is extra.
Not documented in humans though. The search term you would want is parthenogenesis. Unless you are talking about pregnancy without intercourse, which of course we know is a thing. But I think the traditional understanding is that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father.
1 Like
I love the expression the NT uses to explain the inexplicable: by the Spirit. If Jesus was God incarnate, that’s how it is. I love Ian M. Banks’ work, above all Excession. Something of immense, stupefying power intentionally reaches in to a galactically powerful culture, for unknowable purposes; that’s the closest fictional analogy to the casual power of the Spirit.
Sure it has, via artificial insemination.
Nope. Never said I was talking about being born of a mother alone. I specifically denied that. I simply said that there is no problem with a virgin giving birth because conception only requires fertilization. It doesn’t follow that just because an egg is fertilized that therefore the woman is not virgin.
Yeah yeah… pregnancy doesn’t come from sitting on toilet seats… I know. But we ARE talking about a miracle here!
Yep!
I have never been very traditional LOL. The Bible DOES talk like Joseph WAS Jesus’ biological father with the lineages and all. The Bible certainly doesn’t specifically say this was not the case.
A plain reading of scripture says Jesus is the new Adam, so obviously his DNA is identical to Adam’s.
2 Likes
Now, if you’d just rewrite my OP to clear up any misunderstanding among those who decline to read the first source that I linked to, specifically:
- “But there’s a problem with arguing Jesus came about through cloning or parthenogenesis - he would have been born a girl. In the past 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."
Note: “The SRY gene provides instructions for making a protein called the sex-determining region Y protein .”
I am 98% sure that was a joke.
Just trying to present literalism consistently. And, I should have added a 
3 Likes
Well, isn’t that true for all of us? You can believe all the other stuff, but without THAT it’s all a bit meaningless, don’t you think? Unless you are of another religion. You have once asked about the bear minimum to be a Christian, and I think that’s the one, you nailed it on the head!
1 Like
I actually agree with you, but the problem is that too many Christians, especially those who are very religious in a fundamental way, see two of these aspects as completely linked together.
It’s clear that the Idea of Jesus being conceived the normal way is distasteful for them, to put it mildly. I even had religion teacher claiming that Mary remained virgin for her entire life.
Again agree, but we’re talking 1st century Israel here. Did that knowledge exist back then?
We either accept it was the usual way or that God or an archangel put it there. Did they somehow magic it out of thin air or…(best not to spell it out). Would impregnation by holy spirit break laws of nature?
How would that happen? Are you suggesting artificial insemination?
I don’t think so. I think we are talking about an extremely unlikely (i.e. miraculous) exception to the so called “toilet seat” rule. All it takes is a sperm making its way in there alive, and although very very unlikely, it is actually conceivable… of which artificial insemination is a demonstration.
Only as an act of God. …by what Dale would call providential timing. At least, I think that is one of the possibilities, which are many. The main point is that this really isn’t in conflict with science.
Let’s consult the Muslims, okay? Why?
Because–as some around here have assured me–“they worship the same God.” 
One thing’s for certain, they’ll know the difference between “the Incarnation” and “the Conception” of Jesus. There’s no way they’ll accept the Incarnation; but, given the divine status of the Qur’an, there’s also no way the devout ones will question what the Qur’an says about Jesus’ conception. So what does the Qur’an tell us about Jesus’ conception?
- [3:45-47] When the angels said, “O Mary, truly God gives thee glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, high honored in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought nigh. He will speak to people in the cradle and in maturity, and will be among the righteous.” She said, “My Lord, how shall I have a child while no human being has touched me?” He said, “Thus does God create whatsoever He will.” When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, “Be!” and it is."
- That’s pretty much what Christians that Mohammad came into contact with believed about Jesus’ conception:
- that it took place in Mary’s womb,
- that there was no sex or male semen involved, and
- that God simply said “Be”! and the conception was done.
- You can’t get any simpler than that. Trying to explain Jesus’ conception in the womb without sex or semen requires “fancy dancing”. To avoid the dancing, one either accepts the simple story, or one doesn’t. I can’t dance that well, and–given what the “science of genetics” tells me about what a gamete requires in order to become a zygote–my back’s against the wall as long as I stick to the story that the Qur’an tells. Consulting Jews on the matter is “a no-go”, so that’s not an option either.
1 Like
- Alexander Tsiarias’ 9:37 minute TED Talk with a marvelous visual presentation (Nov 14, 2011).
Conception to birth – visualized | Alexander Tsiaras - Nucleus Medical Media 5:42 video of Fertilization, (Jan 31, 2013)
Just had a look to see what Wikipedia has to say about SRY. Apparently it’s not that straightforward. The operative word is “normally”: SRY can end up on the X chromosome instead.
Ultimately, however Jesus’s conception came about, whether He had SRY and on which chromosome and how, the Virgin Birth has always been regarded as a miracle, something that did not occur naturally. In fact if His conception had come about through purely natural factors, how would we be able to call Him the Son of God?
But I don’t have a problem with that. We don’t have a sample of Jesus’s blood to run laboratory analyses on. We don’t have to fudge or cherry-pick measurements, and we don’t have to misrepresent or straw man scientific procedures. All we have is speculation about what the measurements might have been. That is the big difference between the Virgin Birth and radiometric dating.
1 Like
What I’m incredulous about is that you think the God who created all and decided to drastically intervene with his own presence in the form of his Son, demonstrate a multiplicity of suspension of ordinary laws of nature (with higher laws) including the resurrection of the dead… You’re ok with that.
I’m incredulous that you think that suddenly God is stuck. God is unwilling. God needs to fit inside your mind and follow the set of limitations that you think exist and says, ‘Well,’ says God. ‘I can’t possibly do that. He’s right.’
It seems like the simplest of things. Especially since the NT writers considered his birth, death and resurrection the beginning of a new creation. Universe from nothing he can do - but not virgin birth to begin a new creation?
“It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn’t. … If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. … The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. … And they are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all. In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. … The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply “stuck on” and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. … In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them.” CS Lewis
1 Like
No Virgin Birth, no Incarnation.
Your incredulity tells me that there’s 0% chance of reconciling our differences.
A. Good for you that you think “it” seems like the simplest of things. But really? the “NT writers”?
Neither Mark nor Paul–describing the Gospel that he received in 1 Corinthians 15–mention Jesus’ miraculous conception.
B. As for your “Universe from nothing he can do”… sorry, I don’t buy that creatio ex nihilo stuff, so that’s just another irreconcilable difference between us.
It’s time, I think, for a clear, thorough, and unbiased view of the process of fertilization: If the operative word is–as you say"normally"–where was the SRY before it “ended up on the X chromosome”: floating around in Mary’s body somewhere?
On that, I’d like to believe, we agree. Small comfort to any Christian, except perhaps those who still believe that devout Muslims and Christians worship “the same God”, but the Qur’an–which Muslims insist was Allah’s revelation via the Arcangel Gabriel to Mohammed–also affirms Jesus’ miraculous conception in the exchange between Maryam and Gabriel, where she asked "My Lord, how shall I have a child while no human being has touched me?” and Gabriel answered: “Thus does God create whatsoever He will. When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.”
You may (or may not) want to reconsider the necessity of “a miraculous conception” after reading Wisdom 2:12-18
- (Wisdom 2:12) ἐνεδρεύσωμεν τὸν δίκαιον, ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστιν καὶ ἐναντιοῦται τοῖς ἔργοις ἡμῶν καὶ ὀνειδίζει ἡμῖν ἁμαρτήματα νόμου καὶ ἐπιφημίζει ἡμῖν ἁμαρτήματα παιδείας ἡμῶν·
(Wisdom 2:13) ἐπαγγέλλεται γνῶσιν ἔχειν θεοῦ καὶ παῖδα κυρίου ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει·
(Wisdom 2:14) ἐγένετο ἡμῖν εἰς ἔλεγχον ἐννοιῶν ἡμῶν, βαρύς ἐστιν ἡμῖν καὶ βλεπόμενος,
(Wisdom 2:15) ὅτι ἀνόμοιος τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξηλλαγμέναι αἱ τρίβοι αὐτοῦ·
(Wisdom 2:16) εἰς κίβδηλον ἐλογίσθημεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀπέχεται τῶν ὁδῶν ἡμῶν ὡς ἀπὸ ἀκαθαρσιῶν· μακαρίζει ἔσχατα δικαίων καὶ ἀλαζονεύεται πατέρα θεόν.
(Wisdom 2:17) ἴδωμεν εἰ οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ ἀληθεῖς, καὶ πειράσωμεν τὰ ἐν ἐκβάσει αὐτοῦ·
(Wisdom 2:18) εἰ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ δίκαιος υἱὸς θεοῦ, ἀντιλήμψεται αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτὸν ἐκ χειρὸς ἀνθεστηκότων.- Wis 2:12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.
Wis 2:13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.
Wis 2:14 He was made to reprove our thoughts.
Wis 2:15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion.
Wis 2:16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
Wis 2:17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.
Wis 2:18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
- Wis 2:12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.
If you believe that Wisdom 2:18 only applies to a male who has been conceived in a female womb miraculously, we’re done … here and anywhere else in Biologos.
Apparently, my English–which is my second language–is fading now that I’m in my 70s. I left the impression that my “prediction”, in the third sentence of my OP, is the only outrageous thing I’ve said in this thread. Now that we can all agree there’s no cherry-picking of measurements or misrepresentation or straw man scientific procedures, my prediction will forever be false. Neat! Biologos, the Young Earth Creationists, and–for that matter–devout Muslims are that much closer to Ecumenical unity.
Trivia: I look forward to reading Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity Hardcover – March 4, 2019
Terry…I do like the comments you have gotten from Christy and Dale. For my money, the whole enterprise (that is, the “miraculous conception”) was something un-repeatable – which science, I think, requires from the perspective of a lab tech. And it is “un-repeatable” because God (yeah, that Guy!) decided to do something a certain way.
For once, we just have to go with what is…and (to quote the title of an old song) “let it be.”
1 Like