Jesus' father was some male relative of Mary or a Roman soldier?

Question

According to Occam's razor that is a better explanation than the virgin conception (not birth).

Answer 1

~a Roman soldier

Answer 2

It looks like you need to use an "anti-Razor" here (ok, everyone, go to Wikipedia and look that up ...)

Nevertheless, there are three independent proofs of the virgin conception: 1) fulfilled prophecy; 2) Mary's testamony; and 3) God's Word.

The "Roman soldier" theory has been around for quite some time, having been invented by Jews to discourage others from believing Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled. Nowadays, they tell each other that the Hebrew word "alma," which we translate as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, doesn't mean "virgin" at all: it merely means a young woman. They overlook the fact that 1) the Jewish translation of the OT into Greek, known as the Septuagint, uses the Greek word for "virgin" at Isaiah 7:14, proving this was the original intention of the Hebrew word, "alma;" and 2) a young, unchaste woman conceiving a son isn't much of a "sign" from God at all, is it?

Answer 3

I don't like Occam's razor. It assumes that everyone thinks the same thing is the simplest explanation. Personally, I think it is more simple to believe that Jesus was a virgin birth considering all of the old testiment prophesies he fulfilled. Since he fulfilled all of the other ones I find it unlikely that this is the only one that was not fulfilled, and therefore I could argue by Occam's razor that it was more likely a virgin birth.

Make sense?

Answer 4

Go thru the questions:

1: Is parthogenic reproduction possible? Yes, but male offspring is highly unusual.
Is hermaphrodite reproduction possible? Yes, but self-fertilization is rarely possible;
Can parthogenic reproduction be found in higher animals? Yes.
Can Hermaphrodie reproduction be found in higher animals? No.

Thus parthogenic reproduction is possible, but extremely unlikely to result in a male child.

2: She was impregnated by somebody other than Joseph, prior to her marriage.
Possible. However, upon learning of the impregnation, putting her away publicly would have been the correct action. Whislt he could not get justice if she had sex with a Roman soldier, he could get justice if it was by a male relative.

3: She was impregnated by Joseph, prior to the marriage.
Possible. Putting her away privately meant that he would not be exposed.

In the story, we have him reporting a vision he had, that an Angel of the Lord told him that the one within her was of the Holy Ghost.
, and then quotes Isaiah 7:14.

Occam's Razor says to select the answer that is the simplest, but covers all of the issues.

So:
i) What happens by putting Mary away publicly?
If he was the father, he is labeled "fornicator".
If he is not the father, he gets to keep everything that he was given, when he aquired the bride.

ii) What happens by putting Mary way privately;
He risks guilt by association, and has to return everything he recieved, when he aquired the bride;

iii) What happens by keeping Mary;
He retains everything he was given when he acquired the bride.
Both him, and her risks being labelled fornicators --- unless he has a provable story that indicates otherwise.

So, to keep what he was given, he either has to retain possesion of her, or publicly divorce her.
If he keeps her, and is accused of fornication, he needs proof that he is not. The vision from the Angel may or may not suffice.
If somebody other than him was the father, he has to have good proof of who that person was. What Mary said would be irrelevent.
Her life would be examined, as part of the proof that she lost her virginity as the result of a rape. If she did not lose her virginity as the result of rape, then Joseph would need to be able to prove a negative.

And the simplest proof --- albeit one that might not be accepted by the court --- would be that she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

As far as a literal parthogenic birth goes, the major problem is that male offspring are extremely unlikely. What is possible, is an overdeveloped vagina, that morphs into an undeveloped penis. [Such accounts can be found in the medical literature. ]
Most male offspring, from parthogenic birth, are genetically female, with male plumbing.

How plausible is a parthogenic birth, with a child that has male plumbing?
I can't find the statistical calculations, but the statistical results were "possible, but not probable".
[The research paper that had those statistics, derived them from female offspring of human parthogenic birth rates.]

A genetic female with male plumbing parthogenic birth solves at least half a dozen other isssues in the New Testament. Issues that Jesus as the son of a Roman soldier, or son of a male relation of Mary's does not solve, but complicates.

So Occam's razor has to select the Virgin conception as the simplest explanation.

Answer 5

According to Occam's razor if you heard that you had won the lottery (which is EXTREMELY unlikely), it would be a simpler explaination to simply assume that you had misunderstood or read the wrong numbers or some such thing.

But if you then check online and call the number on your ticket and have it confirmed that you won the lottery then the sensible thing to do would be to collect your money.

Same thing here, you have to go where the evidence leads you. And based on the evidence for the truth of the Bible, and what we know of Jesus life, it is quite reasonable to believe in a virgin birth.

Answer 6

There are many who wish they could explain away the mystery of the virgin birth, but the fact remains that it did happen. Likewise many have tried to explain away His Resurrection by many explanations but the fact remains there that He did and from many other sources than just the Biblical account.

You must research things from the standpoint of the times and not by our modern day times. You must study the Jewish laws as well as the Roman laws. You have several secular writings as well that tell of the virgin birth.

Occam's razor is mostly a bunch of foolishness and lies on several counts.

Answer 7

There is no better explanation than that God is the Father of Jesus, we just need to have enough faith to believe that God is truly God and as such is capable things beyond our limited comprehension. If God is not the Father then Jesus is just another man and not capable of being the Savior of the World. I know that he is the Savior and as such I know that God is his Father.

Answer 8

Ummm---His Father is God, Elohim. He is the Son of God...ever heard that??? His earthly father was Joseph...

Answer 9

jesus' father is the Holy Spirit.

Answer 10

Neither. He was made from God. Don't you read the Bible!?