Regarding the virgin birth: What is more likely... a law of nature was suspended or a Jewish minx told a lie?

Question

(I can't take credit for this question... but I had to ask it, anyway)

If you want to hear my question asked during a debate between Christopher Hitchens and the Reverend Al Sharpton click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWt8a1aMkZ4

Answer 1

A virgin birth is not a scientific impossibility.

Virgin births have actually been observed in the animal world. The scientific term for "virgin birth" is "parthenogenesis". It is possible, at least in theory, for a virgin woman to give birth also.

Therefore, the Gospel account does not require that the "law of nature (be) suspended" in order to be true.

Next question please.

By the way, this question gets asked every day. It's getting old. Please move on. Thanks.

And to "Coma White"-
I'm sorry but you simply do not know what you are talking about. Please do a little research into the scientific FACT of parthenogenesis. It has been OBSERVED in the natural world. It DOES happen. Your "common sense" is wrong.

--------------------

And to all those who gave me the "thumbs down"-
You atheists try to pretend that you know science.
Science is not the enemy of Christianity.
If fact, true science is the friend of Christianity.
For one example, a virgin birth IS possible. They have been OBSERVED by scientists. I guess you didn't know that.

I guess you are not as smart as you thot.

Maybe it is time to get saved. You are not God. On your own you are headed for hell. And that is just where you are going unless you swallow your pride. You need a Savior.

His name is JESUS.
-----------------------------------

---------------
Parthenogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parthenogenesis (from the Greek παρθένος parthenos, "virgin", + γένεσις genesis, "creation") describes the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male. Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including lower plants, invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids, some bees and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g. some reptiles,[1] fish, and, very rarely, birds[2] and sharks[3]). It is sometimes also used to describe reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species which can self-fertilize.

---------------------

TELEGRAPH.co.uk

Science of the Virgin Birth

LEAVING aside the tricky theological issue of whether a miracle really requires a plausible explanation, various accounts of the biology of the Virgin Birth have been put forward by a London professor of genetics.

The genetic recipe for Jesus must, of course, have come from Mary alone. But, if she was normal, she would have only the genetic wherewithal - in humans, a bundle of genes called the

X chromosome - to make a female. For Mary to give birth to a boy by parthenogenesis, she would also have had to have another chromosome, the Y chromosome, which separates the girls from the boys.

This creates something of a headache. If Mary had passed on a Y chromosome, it suggests that she carried a working Y chromosome that would have led to her possessing male characteristics as well as being sterile.

Sam Berry, emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has proposed biologically conceivable mechanisms by which the virgin birth of a male child could occur, drawing on research on a condition called intersex, where sex lies somewhere between the male and female extremes.

In the absence of a sperm to import a Y chromosome, Berry speculates that Mary could have been male but suffered a genetic mutation that had the effect of preventing target cells in her body from "recognising" the male sex hormone testosterone; Mary would have been chromosomally XY but would appear as a normal female.

As a result of androgen insensitivity, she would also be sterile and lack a uterus. However, Berry points out that the differentiation of the sex organs can be variable, and it is possible a person of this constitution could develop an ovum and a uterus. "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically, and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have the situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

The possibilities are by no means exhausted. Berry points out that some men are apparently XX, that is, have a female genetic complement. "Examination shows that in them the male determining factor of the Y (the SRY gene, which triggers male development) has been translocated on to another chromosome."

If this male determining gene was translocated to the X chromosome and if that chromosome was inactivated in early development (one

X chromosome is always inactivated on a random basis, so normally half of the cells will express one X, say, the maternal X, and half the paternal X), the carrier will have a female appearance, but have the capacity to pass on the male determining gene.

Men with XX chromosomes are sterile. However, with enough ingenuity, this need not present a problem. "Jesus never married and we do not know if he was fertile (although he was, of course, 'perfect man' in the theological sense)," said Berry.

He stressed, however, that there is no certain record of parthenogenesis in humans, nor of a male being conceived without fertilisation by a Y-bearing sperm, never mind the effects of imprinting. But miracles are highly improbable, by definition.

Prof Berry is well aware of this: "The mechanisms I have outlined are unlikely, unproven, and involve the implication that either Jesus or Mary or both) were developmentally abnormal. My purpose in describing them is simply to reduce the assumption of incredibility that seems to dog the doctrine of the Virgin Birth."

Answer 2

The story of the virgin birth was created by the followers of Matthew and John to justify Jesus as their messiah. It is not mentioned in the first written gospel (Mark). From the written documetns of Jews, Greeks and Romans we know the following:
1) A tax census was indeed ordered, but only to big towns such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Sepphoria. Not to hamlets such as Nazareth.
2) It was not ordered for everyone to go to their birth place. That doesn't make sense. It was ordered to tax on possessions, property and slaves. How were they to tax someone's property when they weren't there to check it?
3) The idea of the entire roman empire stopping and re-shuffling to wait for a tax man, which would have taken weeks and possibly months, is distinctly un-Roman. Their economy would have collapsed.
4) The sluaughter of the innocents, apparently ordered by Herod, is never mentioned in any historical records. Many things of Herod are, and this would certainly have been written down if it occurred.
5) There was a bit of competition between John the Baptist's followers, and Jesus'. After all, who baptised who? John was born to a barren mother (apparently), and what's more miraculous than that? A virgin birth.
6) Jesus preached the re-instatement of Israel as the Kingdom of God, with the 12 tribes ruling and he as its king. He knew that the Romans would have to be forcefully removed for this to occur, and he thought he was the messiah. He ended up as every other 'messiah' did; on the cross. This disqualified him as the messiah, but his messaged continued, and his legend became subject to chinese whispers.

Answer 3

Regarding the "best" answer's assertion that the immaculate conception is scientifically possible because of parthenogenesis, the poster conveniently left out some very important parts of that Wikipedia article.

"There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild."

and

"Induced parthenogenesis in mice and monkeys often results in abnormal development. This is because mammals have imprinted genetic regions, where either the maternal or the paternal chromosome is inactivated in the offspring in order for development to proceed normally. A mammal created by parthenogenesis would have double doses of maternally imprinted genes and lack paternally imprinted genes, leading to developmental abnormalities."

So to answer the Christopher Hitchens question/quote, it is more likely that the Virgin Mary, if she even existed, told a lie.

In order to believe that she magically got pregnant because of god is to believe based on nothing more than your desire to believe.

Answer 4

Neither. Quantum Mechanics is showing us that we don't know all the laws of nature or man, but we are learning fast in every subject. It's an explosion and we are in for a what they are calling a revolution in science. Hold on to your seat belt. Even miracles have laws, we just don't know them all yet, but we know some. We're in for a wild ride in this 21st century. trans4mind.com

Answer 5

Why should it matter what is more likely by today's standards?

Since you have never set foot anywhere near that far into the past you can't rightly do other than blindly assume that the laws of existence were the same then...

But then again... by today's standards, the question isn't even worth asking. I've never encountered the suspension of laws that seem consistantly to exist.... so I wouldn't reckon it likely they could be.

Answer 6

comawhite that is just ridiculous, have you not heard of in vitro fertilization? Do you not think the creator of the universe could handle a little DNA in a woman's uterus?

I have to agree with a previous poster, the law of nature was not suspended, God just stepped in and handled it.

Answer 7

I heard once that the original word which the church interpreted as "virgin" meant a woman who has not had a child, not one who had never had a man. Could explain a lot. Could explain a damn lot, actually.

Answer 8

In my opinion, despite scientific possiblity etc., it seems more likely that she found herself pregnant and being an obviously very intelligent woman, found her way around the legal penalty for that. I mean no offense to anyone who feels differently.

Answer 9

Well, it was a lie obviously.


and to preachershoe - the only way a "virgin" can get pregnant is if you blow your load on your hand and let it drip in. There is no way to get pregnant without the sperms getting in that spot. The fact is, a human can not get pregnant by themselves, if you believe that, you are an idiot.

Answer 10

Duh.

Virgin births happen in animals. It is not a giant leap therefore to humans.