Jesus's DNA

[colin590]

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Four Dogs

It's completely pointless to ask this question. If you believe the scriptures then you believe that Jesus was the son of God....

There are a lot of theists (such as myself) that expect God to work through mechanisms he established. I don't disallow for the single-event-miracle, but God (objectively) does not work that way very often. It is reasonable for anyone, theist or not, to be curious about the mechanism for any action in the physical world. Investigation of cause and effect is the core of basic science.

Personally, I think that precluding significant events from review just because of inexplicability is not reasonable. I also think that everyday activities are miraculous. Just because effects are reproducible (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, birth) does not (to me) make them less miraculous.

[Four Dogs]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

There are a lot of theists (such as myself) that expect God to work through mechanisms he established. I don't disallow for the single-event-miracle, but God (objectively) does not work that way very often. It is reasonable for anyone, theist or not, to be curious about the mechanism for any action in the physical world. Investigation of cause and effect is the core of basic science.

Personally, I think that precluding significant events from review just because of inexplicability is not reasonable. I also think that everyday activities are miraculous. Just because effects are reproducible (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, birth) does not (to me) make them less miraculous.

Oh, I agree. I personaly don't buy into anything that puts the supernatural above the natural. I believe that Christ existed but question his origin. But those of us with a more spiritual bent shouldn't be intimidated by comments such as the ones Boerseun made. He's basically saying that Mary was a tramp that got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. If you believe that God is all powerful, no science will or should be able to disuade you from your faith and in that respect, the question is pointless. If there is a God then certainly he would be free and perhaps obligated to utilize the tools and equipment he put in place.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Four Dogs

...But those of us with a more spiritual bent shouldn't be intimidated by comments such as the ones Boerseun made. He's basically saying that Mary was a tramp that got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. ...

I am not intimitated by B at all. He is usually quite the thoughtful participant. I was gently pushing back on him because I thought his view was not particularly thoughtful. I was hoping he might come back and defend himself on that point.

Discussions about the life of Jesus (whether or not they include miracles) are alway interesting, in that folks elect to pick and choose which elements of the Biblical text have credibility. I think it is a little inconsistent to suggest Jesus was born to Mary (affirming the text) but to ascribe a father that is explicitly refuted in the text. It would be more reasonable (if you are going to assume a natural birth) to suggest that Mary was impregnated by an unknown male. Overall, even that is pretty untenable for a host of reasons, but is more supportable than suggesting that Joseph's fatherhood is a no-brainer.


I was making fun of B for taking a weak position and characterizing it as the "obvious" answer.

[HydrogenBond]

Based on what science know today, we can not explain a virgin birth. It does not mean it could not happen, only that science can not explain it. It is very presumptuous of science to assume that current knowledge is the final state of the art. Before science could see germs, they did not exist. They always existed but the assumption that science knows all, convinced science that if we can not see it, it can not be possible.

[pgrmdave]

Are you suggesting that we don't know enough of genetics to understand that a human could not spontaneously impregnate herself, much less with a male child? I understand that if one accepts an all-powerful god then it doesn't take much to believe in miricles, however, this means that none of science actually matters. Science is involved in making predictions based on what happened in the past and with knowledge of how objects interact. If there is a diety out there who can alter the rules at will, then we can rightfully assume that no prediction can possibly be accurate because we don't know when/if that god would ever change anything.

I believe that there is a creator, and he/she/it created the rules of the universe, the laws of physics and mathematics and whatever else is involved in creating a world. The question does assume that stance to a degree - that fertilization has to involve an egg and a sperm. Since many people believe that Jesus was the literal child of God, I was wondering whether people actually thought that God had DNA, or he was simply a figurative child, or that someone else was the father.

[ughaibu]

India constantly has several incarnations of Visnu. I expect sometimes they receive medical treatment. If you assume that all incarnations of god are consistent, maybe investigating them will answer your question.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Are you suggesting that we don't know enough of genetics to understand that a human could not spontaneously impregnate herself, much less with a male child? ..

Actually, we know enough to know that she could. Parthenogenesis is the term for auto-pregnancy in sexually reproductive species. In sexually reproductive species, parthenogenesis would require that the offspring be female, an exact genetic replication of the mother.

In my note above, I suggested that things would have to be somewhat different for a mother to have a parthenogenetic male child. Specifically, the mother would have to have some X chromosomes. This does happen occasionally, and the syndrome is called Turner's mosaic, where some maternal cells (even germ cells) are XXY. It would be thus feasible, although unlikely, that a Turner's mosaic mother could have a parthenogenetic male child.

No one has ever documented such an occurence.

There was once a research attempt to document female parthenogenetic events in Britain (reported in the Lancet in 1956). The researchers were convinced that some cases of natural parthenogenesis did occur in humans in Britain (e.g., some women were pregnant when the birth canal was obstructed, and there was no avenue for sperm penetration.)

Extending this notion to successful male-offspring parthenogeneis is speculative, but not genetically impossible.

[arkain101]

again,

There are much details which are not of importance.

A message was sent, it had a story, the message was purposeful and meaningful, the story is the background to the message which is the action. We may never know the who what where and hows.. and we must apply the posistion of a uneducated person in the the ancient times when jesus walked the earth. But, we can always depend on the message, the depth in the message that contains much useful information to consider and sift through.

[HydrogenBond]

What you say is true. One can get bogged down in a little point to where you lose track of the forest.

But along the lines of geneic speculation, I read an article , based on 1st century writings. Mary had been a temple priestess trainee when she was young. These were the cream of the crop girls of their day. Mary Magdeline became a full temple priestess a generation later. They were sorority sisters of sorts. The priestess were sort of geisa girls; very educated, spiritual, sensual, artistic. When Mary got pregnant, at about 16, she was given to Joseph for a wife to avoid scandel. The unsubstantiated speculation is that a Roman Officer got Mary pregnant. This theory gives Jesus genes from two very precocious parents.