A question for Catholics regarding the biological origins of Jesus.?

Question

According to Roman Catholic Dogma, Jesus was born of a virgin, and he was both human and a god; the human part being solely created by the body of Mary without any divine participation whatever, whereas the divine component of Jesus is solely an outgrowth of God.

Apparently Jesus was a male, and for a human male foetus to form it has to be conceived with a Y chromosome which can only be contributed by the male. Also if a human could be born solely from a human female, the only way even hypothetically possible would mean it would be an exact clone of the mother.

So how if Jesus was born of a virgin wasn’t he female and an exact genetic duplicate of his mother?
If you are a Catholic you may not answer this question by saying that God intervened and somehow supplied the missing chromosomes because it is the Dogma of your church that there was no such divine interception. Such an answer invoking divine genetic participation in the creation of a viable Jesus zygote would be clearly heretical according to RC theology.
TIA

check wikipedia virgin birth to links for the catholic dogma mentioned
to other rude bastards her I have a degree in biological science and taught biology at one of the best high schools in Melbourne before retirement

Answer 1

Oooh this is GOOD!!!! Thank you for this post, a star, and again, thank you.

Wow, notice how no Christian has answered this question, they are just avoiding it.

JimPettis
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2007/05/look-no-dad-zoo-shark-is-born-by-virgin.html
Enough said. Mammals can't do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth#_note-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
Nice Work Vermin! Feel a bit weird saying that one, but you get the message, and hey, you chose the name after all!

Answer 2

All wrong - because your hypothesis puts limits on Divine power, Divine Power of course being limitless. With God "all things" are possible, not just the things limited to explanation no matter how outragious.

What you need to understand is that no Christian, who believes in the Virgin Birth, needs to waste time on your theory because you do not speak with Authority. God, on the other hand, does speak with Authority, through His Church:

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Answer 3

Not RC, but the answer is really simple.

"Also if a human could be born solely from a human female, the only way even hypothetically possible would mean it would be an exact clone of the mother.:"

Clearly not, as the "hypothesis" of the virgin birth of Jesus has been around for 2,000 years. This is simply an inaccurate statement. Human gametes are *not* identical to *either* set of parental chromosomes in any case. Clearly, you have not yet had high school health class, where you learn a little about the genetics of human procreation. It is *extraordinarily* unlikely that a human produced by parthenogenesis would be a clone of the parent.


"So how if Jesus was born of a virgin wasn’t he female and an exact genetic duplicate of his mother?"

Obvious answer: Because the "human part", as you put it, was only half from Mary. Even so, it is not impossible for parthenogenesis to produce males in *other* species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis .


BTW, RC catechism says under topic 465: "...the Son of God is 'begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father' ". Apparently you were misinformed about RC beliefs.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 4

Sorry, but authentic Catholic dogma does not conform to your unfounded assumptions.

Jesus was conceived (fully God and fully man) in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Nothing more is known about the process.

Answer 5

I'm not catholic, but here is my answer. God openeth the womb. Mary conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. God created man from the dust of the earth, so I'm sure that He could make Mary conceive, and give birth to a perfect child. With God, all things are made possible.

Answer 6

Virginal human conception is miraculous, so all this clone talk does not apply in the least.

Where did you get the idea that that the divine intervention in the Incarnation is somehow against Catholic dogma?

Answer 7

God blessed each one of us with an imagination ,It's not genetic , but it< is > what gives us life , without it there is no reason to exist, FUN , GOALS , our imagination , is created right alongside of energy one fuels the other , they innertwine ,like a helix the Y fits in there somewhere , faith is one of the signs of a good imagionation , you can imagion anything ,, God is behind that, so when you feel good ,,thank God , satan is darkness ,everlasting , I don't feel good about that , for some reason ,,,

Answer 8

Here is more proof that the teachings of the catholic church are contrary to what the Bible tells us. You need to read the gospel according to Luke.
I suggest you accept Christ as your savior and ask Him to forgive you of your sins.