Interesting theory. Makes you wonder where the y chrom. came from.
2007-02-14 03:01:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Ok first, What does this have to do with Jesus?
And second, did they find the body of Jesus Christ? Did they do experiments on him to find out what genes he had, where his other family decendants are, and how long he lived???
Why does it even matter if Jesus had missing chromosomes, or extra ones?? Jesus was born, he did emactulate things, he died, he rose from the dead, and is waiting for the right time for his great return.
Religion and science totally condradict one another. Religion says that God created the world, and science says things crashed into each other to make the planets and all life.
They have no room in a paragraph with each other, let alone a sentance. Unless he had enormous amounts of testosterone and became the first real bearded lady, then there's nothing to question. You can't base questions on stupid facts like science, just because they came out with the movie Dogma. It was a good movie, it brought up some good questions, but if you read your bible, and learn about it, then you won't have any questions.
The only thing science explains, are the things that aren't supposed to be known to the world. If God had planned on everyone knowing the secrets to the body and brain, then don't you think He would have given us that knowledge? I know that science prevents nasty things like cancer, and brain damage. But if you went to church and asked God to heal you, and believe that he will, then you won't have anything to worry about.
If you went to church and believe in what the Word says, then you wouldn't have a reason to ask this question. Good luck finding the answer that you're looking for.
EDIT*
God is neither man nor woman. God's something alright, but I don't believe that God's man or woman. The reason they call him man, is because when the bible was written, everything was all about men. So they just started calling God male. It's not wether you think he's male or female. As long as you believe.
2007-02-14 03:16:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pluto 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are confusing immaculate conception with assexual reproduction.
If the child was comprised entirely of the mother's genetic material (which would be assexual reproduction), then yes, the child would HAVE to be female. However, this is not the case in an immaculate conception. The premise of immaculate conception is not that a woman conceives spontaneously, but that she conceives through the power of a god. She may be a virgin because she has not had sex with a human man, but she has in fact 'known' the male god who fathers her child, and therefore the child could be either male or female, human or god. This theory applies to Jesus, but also to the numerous children Zeus fathered in the Greek mythologies, and many other type stories.
2007-02-14 03:03:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Christal 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Immaculate conception doesn't mean the baby is born with only half the chromosomes.
That would result in a spontaneous abortion.
God provided the other half of the chromosomes to Mary's egg.
2007-02-14 03:20:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Waiting and Wishing 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Common misconception. Immaculate conception DOES NOT refer to the conception of Christ. It refers to the Virgin Mary's conception. That she was concieved (in the old fashioned way) without original sin. Her soul was "bonded to her body" at the moment of conception. This is from the Catholic encyclopedia:
"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
2007-02-14 04:32:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by duckygrl21 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
the child was called a Male child by GOD, so I guess if you believe it happened at all as I do, then you need to believe what gender He was said to be. As for God being female as one person suggested, God the Father ? I have never seen a passage mentioning God the Mother. Common sense and faith will go a long way when used .
2007-02-14 03:08:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Paul & Cathy C 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Historically speaking Jesus was a boy. Definately - there is a lot of historical evidence for this conclusion.
2007-02-14 02:57:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by celianne 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, woe to anyone who would challenge someone else's warped ideas about religion. What are you, some kinda free thinker or something?
It's like asking this question: If God is Omnipotent, that would mean that he could create anything. So he would be able to create a rock that was unable to be lifted. But if he is Omnipotent, he'd be able to lift it, which makes him unable to create a rock that can't be lifted, etc...
2007-02-14 03:11:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by jasohn1 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
You can't address the scenario using natural science. Science by definition cannot address the concept of God (which does not mean that he does not exist).
-Aztec276
2007-02-14 02:58:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
God is not constrained by science. The holy spirit made Mary concieve the Son of Man.
2007-02-14 02:57:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by TexasFroggy 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nonsense. There is no such thing as an immaculate conception.
2007-02-14 03:04:32
·
answer #11
·
answered by KathyS 7
·
1⤊
1⤋