This is one area where the ancient Greeks seems to have better genetic intuition than modern Christians.
2007-06-20 07:53:48 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No because christians will make up words and weird stories to explain this.
2007-06-20 07:57:50 · answer #1 · answered by SwimBuddy 3 · 9⤊ 3⤋
At the time the Bible was written, people believed that babies got all genetic information from their fathers. They didn't even know about genetics or DNA. They believed that men put entire baby blueprints in women and that women were mere vessels during pregnancy. They had no idea that women gave 1/2 of the genes and men the other 1/2. The story of a god coming from a human mother doesn't make sense to us nowadays because we know that pregnant women are much more than mere baby carriers.
2007-06-20 15:36:05 · answer #2 · answered by razzthedestroyer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
VERY good point!
The TRUTH of which many people don't want to accept because they could never believe that they have been lied to via the church..but the TRUTH is that the definition of a "Virgin" in the time of Christ was a woman in her first year of marriage who has not had a child yet. They had this custom because in case the man married a woman who was barren, he could still after a year marry another woman and not have it considered a "Divorce" and the woman who was barren could go on and still be a virgin. So the "Virgin" birth is nothing more than a play on words to control man in another way.
2007-06-20 15:06:22 · answer #3 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Patriarchal faiths tend to cut out the woman's role in procreation. Mary was considered a virgin womb, and that was about all.
The Greeks had those myths down pat. They claimed Alexander the Great was born of a woman and Zeus in the form of a serpent. Wow.
2007-06-20 14:59:46 · answer #4 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. While Mary was basically the oven for the Jesus bun, because Mary and God didn't copulate, that means that there is no reason to assume that there is any of Mary's DNA in Jesus.
If yo go with the theory that Jesus was the result of a Roman soldier raping Mary, then there's another whole kettle of fish riht there.
2007-06-20 15:02:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
If a person can read Greek and Roman mythology and not see the connection to Jesus' so called divine status they are beyond reasoning with.
2007-06-20 15:16:51 · answer #6 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Like Hercules!!
sweet
2007-06-20 14:57:08 · answer #7 · answered by Chock Full O'Nuts 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
God does not have DNA. He is not human, he is not even matter. So how can he be the same species, mating with a human? This throws me off. If Jesus is in fact the son of God, he must have God's DNA, but cannot since God is not human. "Souls" do not pass from parent to offspring do they? I see this as one big contradiction. Excellent question.
2007-06-20 14:57:44 · answer #8 · answered by khard 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Mary's DNA was necessary so that Jesus could be born in human form.
2007-06-20 15:08:33 · answer #9 · answered by Char 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can't ask these kind of questions church goers don't know the answers (because there is none). They will say you are trying to put it into human terms when you speak about this stuff you just can't understand it. God is so far above us that you will never understand him it is called faith.
2007-06-20 15:03:01 · answer #10 · answered by joe d 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Just think if they'd have been able to store Jesus' stem cells from the umbilical cord! Praise the Lord!!
2007-06-20 14:59:51 · answer #11 · answered by Ann_Tykreist 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋