Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Virgin birth

Options
  • 30-12-2007 2:18pm
    #1
    adamd164
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭


    Hello, I'm a Biology undergraduate in UCC. I'd like to ask the members of this forum a question: do you believe in the virgin birth? If so, how can you reconcile this with its biological impossibility? Whilst, in some exceptional instances, it is possible for a female to self fertilise, it is strictly impossible for her to conceive a male. A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

    Many regards, and pleasant new year,
    Adam


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Hello_everybody
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Hello_everybody


    Hi adam,

    what a daring and interesting post!

    Yes, I do believe in the virgin birth, having being brainwashed as a kid by the church and school.

    And it's obviously not a biological impossibility since it actually did happen according to the bible.
    if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

    Yes, I would think the idea of a virgin birth is absolute lunacy, but as I said, the brainwashing I have undergone since my early years has led me to believe that the virgin birth is fact.


  • Options
    #3
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    There's a film from Canada, I can't remember the name of it, but in the opening sequence a Greek farmer is pleasuring himself in close proximity to a case of his finest tomatoes. His seed, as it were, 'contaminates' the tomatoes and they are shipped off with great speed to a Canadian marketplace. Here a woman, the mother of the films central character, falls 'awkwardly' on the said crate of tomatoes and is impregnated. Voila - a virgin birth.

    The Jews say Jesus and his twin brother were the sons of a Roman soldier named Pandeira. All I know is that the prophecy of the Messiah in the Septuagint wherein it specifies he is to be born of a virgin, is actually a mistranslation from the original Hebrew. AFAIK what the passage originally read was 'young woman' and the story we see in the NT is a twisting of the facts in order to fit a mis-percieved prophecy.


  • Options
    #4
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    adamd164 wrote: »
    you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?
    I think that the whole virgin-birth phenomenon is the least arduous anti-science leap of faith that Catholics only (correct me if I'm wrong) have to make.

    The central tenant of all Christian belief is in the resurrection, i.e. Jesus springing back to life, as a metaphor for the principle of redemption and eternal life.

    All faith is basically belief with empirical proof.


  • Options
    #5
    adamd164
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭adamd164


    I agree, DublinWriter, but the Virgin Birth is one which fascinates me, for some reason.

    SubjectSean, that example you gave isn't obviously a true virgin birth. My question was intended to be "do you believe that a female gave birth to a male child without a male member of the same species fertilising her egg?"

    Hello_everybody, I sure am glad I managed to escape such impressings upon my young, well, impressionable mind. There are people who can help, don't give up hope just yet.

    The quaint surroundings of this forum truly are intellectually stimulating; it's interesting to educate oneself on methods of indoctrination and how far they can be taken before people step back and think to themselves "hold on, this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?!". Thanks for taking the time to reply. :)


  • Options
    #6
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    I think that the whole virgin-birth phenomenon is the least arduous anti-science leap of faith that Catholics only (correct me if I'm wrong) have to make.

    OK, consider yourself corrected. :) All major Christian churches believe in the virgin birth.

    As to the OP, "biological impossibility" = a miracle, which is hardly difficult to accept if you believe in an omnipotent God.

    And no, the only brainwashing I received at a young age was that of my atheist upbringing. I made a reasoned choice to accept the virgin birth as an adult.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    adamd164 wrote: »

    SubjectSean, that example you gave isn't obviously a true virgin birth. My question was intended to be "do you believe that a female gave birth to a male child without a male member of the same species fertilising her egg?"

    And my answer is in effect 'No I don't believe' but I can certainly see ways that such a story may have come about. IMO the whole Mary thing is an irrelevance. As far as I care Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus and not how how his mother came to be pregnant or how he died.


  • Options
    #8
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    And my answer is in effect 'No I don't believe' but I can certainly see ways that such a story may have come about. IMO the whole Mary thing is an irrelevance. As far as I care Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus and not how how his mother came to be pregnant or how he died.


    From this post and others, would I be right in thinking that Jesus to you was just a guy that came with good advice?


  • Options
    #9
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    adamd164 wrote: »
    Hello, I'm a Biology undergraduate in UCC. I'd like to ask the members of this forum a question: do you believe in the virgin birth?
    Yes, absolutely.
    adamd164 wrote: »
    If so, how can you reconcile this with its biological impossibility? Whilst, in some exceptional instances, it is possible for a female to self fertilise, it is strictly impossible for her to conceive a male.
    Of course it's a biological impossilbilty but surely it's a simple feat for Almighty God.
    adamd164 wrote: »
    A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?
    I don't like the word indoctinate because of it's negative connotations. Growing up I received a poor religious education or least it seems that way or maybe I just wasn't listening. What I know now about my faith I learnt mostly in the past five years. What I do believe is that the world is generally cynical about spiritual matters and more so about things that sound too good to be true e.g. Heaven, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, the Virgin Birth etc.
    Many regards, and pleasant new year,
    Adam
    Same to you too!

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Options
    #10
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Always find people asking this funny, I mean, if you believe God created the earth, you're hardly going to have issue with him sending his son through a virgin.


  • Options
    #11
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    adamd164 wrote: »
    A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

    As has been pointed out adamd164, if you believe in an omnipotent God then there should be no problem accepting the virgin birth. It's that simple, really. But to answer your questions. Firstly, no, I don't consider myself a lunatic. Secondly, no, I don't think it all a load of bollocks. If you are truly interested in garnering a Christian response on this topic (rather than simply putting forth loaded questions) it might be an idea to dispense with your assumption that all Christians have been indoctrinated from childhood.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Although an interesting question is, whose genetics would Jesus have? Would he be a Jew racially for example?


  • Options
    #13
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Adam not that I appreciate the tone of your question, I will do the best I can to oblige you.
    adamd164 wrote:
    do you believe in the virgin birth? If so, how can you reconcile this with its biological impossibility?

    Yes, I as most Christians believe in the Virgin Birth? However the second part of your question utterly stumps me a bit. I'll let you know why it stumps me. If the creation narrative is true (I know that is quite a leap, but I believe that too) surely the Lord created the world with all it's physical, chemical, and biological attributes. Surely if He created the world with this attributes, He would know how to alter them with His power. Surely they are also His creation. I hope that is an adequte explanation.
    adamd164 wrote:
    A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

    If you don't mind me stating Adam, you are quite the fan of what I would describe as the "loaded statement". You assume (wrongly, although unlike you I am open for discussion on this) when you come to this forum, that all Christians have not rationally thought about their faith and the implications it would have for them. We are told that we should expect persecution and bigotry at some point in our lifetime by Christ.

    Just even assuming that we were indoctrinated. It is the right of the parent to bring up their children in a particular faith. Yes parents leave a lasting influence on their children in a good few cases by bringing them up in faith. May I also remind you that parents leave a lasting influence on children by not bringing them up in faith? They are equal in my eyes, and I definetely wouldn't see it as "indoctrination".

    To answer your question Adam, I was not particularly indoctrinated. I was brought to church frequently as a child. Yes I will not deny that. However, I never really understood the Christian faith, until I decided that I would sit down and read the Bible, start to finish. This has been the best thing I have ever done. I'm now 18, closer to God than I've ever been in my life, through work of my own, and I'm even starting to study the theologies behind it now.

    To answer the latter part of your question, Adam. No I would not consider myself to be a lunatic. Infact I would consider it lunacy not to follow the way of Christ as it's in the ultimate interest of mankind that everyone do so. I sincerely hope that He will cleanse you of your arrogance and closedmindedness, even if you are a biology undergraduate. Surely being an skeptic, (whatever you are, not to jump to conclusions), doesn't revoke the prerequisite of discussion, that is manners.

    Now Son Goku, I found your post rather interesting. So I think I might tackle that next if you don't mind :)
    Son Goku wrote:
    Although an interesting question is, whose genetics would Jesus have? Would he be a Jew racially for example?

    Although God is indeed in mans image according to Genesis. Man is of many different racial groups, and the Lord created all of these racial groups. So I would easily say that Jesus would not have been affected genetically by God really if He is indeed God Incarnate in the Christian theological point of view. So I would say that Jesus was Jewish, as His mother was. Just from running down the general thought on the plan. I'm not entirely certain, not sure if any Christian could give a 100% foolproof answer on it.


  • Options
    #14
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    JimiTime wrote: »
    From this post and others, would I be right in thinking that Jesus to you was just a guy that came with good advice?

    Not at all Jimi, a man in tune with God is how I have him.


  • Options
    #15
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Son Goku wrote: »
    Although an interesting question is, whose genetics would Jesus have? Would he be a Jew racially for example?

    Yes of the tribe of Judah and a Jew by religion also (unlike most of his followers)


  • Options
    #16
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »



    Although God is indeed in mans image according to Genesis. Man is of many different racial groups, and the Lord created all of these racial groups.

    Nope God created one human race of differing ethnicities. "Racial groups" are the devils invention.


  • Options
    #17
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    I do believe in the virgin birth, for many reasons that im not bothered about getting into. Why say it in the text if its not what Scripture wanted it to say as it cozs so many problems it would have been easier for the author to leave it out so it must of been part of the belief of the early church. I dont agree with the arguement about the origional word meaning young woman as the word (cant remember what it was) did mean this but in the sense of "untouched young woman".

    Islam also believes in the virginity of Mary.

    And we re not just dealing with the biological in regard to Christs conception.

    happy new year


  • Options
    #18
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    adamd164 wrote: »
    The quaint surroundings of this forum truly are intellectually stimulating; it's interesting to educate oneself on methods of indoctrination and how far they can be taken before people step back and think to themselves "hold on, this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?!". Thanks for taking the time to reply. :)
    My pleasure, and in reply, do take time out to read the Charter. You are coming very close to breaking it.
    Asia


  • Options
    #19
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    Yes of the tribe of Judah and a Jew by religion also (unlike most of his followers)

    Actually good point.

    Mary passed on her Jewish lineage to Jesus, as it passes through the mother.
    SubjectSean wrote:
    Nope God created one human race of differing ethnicities. "Racial groups" are the devils invention.

    Apologies "ethnicities" then.... You got the general jist.


  • Options
    #20
    daiixi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,347 ✭✭✭daiixi


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    The Jews say Jesus and his twin brother were the sons of a Roman soldier named Pandeira. All I know is that the prophecy of the Messiah in the Septuagint wherein it specifies he is to be born of a virgin, is actually a mistranslation from the original Hebrew. AFAIK what the passage originally read was 'young woman' and the story we see in the NT is a twisting of the facts in order to fit a mis-percieved prophecy.

    I can't remember where the idea came from but I am of the impression that the term "virgin" used to refer to any woman who hadn't given birth before and as Jesus was Mary's first child it was a virgin birth. Has anyone else heard of this?


  • Options
    #21
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Although God is indeed in mans image according to Genesis. Man is of many different racial groups, and the Lord created all of these racial groups. So I would easily say that Jesus would not have been affected genetically by God really if He is indeed God Incarnate in the Christian theological point of view. So I would say that Jesus was Jewish, as His mother was. Just from running down the general thought on the plan. I'm not entirely certain, not sure if any Christian could give a 100% foolproof answer on it.

    I think what Son is asking is where did the other half of Jesus' genetic material come from?

    Did God just make it up? Did he take Joseph's?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think what Son is asking is where did the other half of Jesus' genetic material come from?

    Did God just make it up? Did he take Joseph's?

    How would anyone know that?

    Why would anyone care?

    Since He didn't pass His genetic material on to anyone, why would it matter?


  • Options
    #23
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    PDN wrote: »
    How would anyone know that?

    Why would anyone care?

    Since He didn't pass His genetic material on to anyone, why would it matter?
    You're a funny fella. It's just an idle question, not some attempt to disprove Jesus or anything. Obviously Jackass found it interesting. You can't really answer it, but it's interesting to wonder.


  • Options
    #24
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think what Son is asking is where did the other half of Jesus' genetic material come from?

    Did God just make it up? Did he take Joseph's?

    It came from God. Therefore Jesus was God and man.

    But you probably don't want to know this.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #25
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    God does not have chromosomes IMO. If It did It would be a creature.


  • Options
    #26
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Son Goku wrote: »
    You're a funny fella. It's just an idle question, not some attempt to disprove Jesus or anything. Obviously Jackass found it interesting. You can't really answer it, but it's interesting to wonder.

    Indeed. It's interesting to think about. I have a theory about it, from just my thought about the scriptures. People could come up with hundreds of different views. Perhaps it is safer not to say which is right or wrong. I cannot say that it's 100% as reliable as anything from the scriptures obviously. Just what I think :)
    SubjectSean wrote:
    God does not have chromosomes IMO. If It did It would be a creature.

    Interesting? Where does it say that. If God created the world with all it's biological confines surely He could have created sufficent chromosones for Jesus. However this is just speculation.

    What Christians understand is that Jesus was far far more than human, to say that he was even born of the same genetic confines as the rest of us is rather difficult considering that He existed before He was born. (John 1) He was not a mortal. Therefore it's difficult to judge his existence from a mortals point of view.


  • Options
    #27
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Interesting? Where does it say that. If God created the world with all it's biological confines surely He could have created sufficent chromosones for Jesus. However this is just speculation..

    I just don't think God could possibly encode Itself within the limited scope of half the chromosomes of one species. However this too is mere speculation :)


  • Options
    #28
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    It came from God. Therefore Jesus was God and man.

    Jesus was God because God created his chromosomes? Not sure that is correct, I don't think chromosomes can make someone a deity.

    But as Son says, its just idle speculation. I suppose I would be more interested in whether or not Christians actually think about these things.


  • Options
    #29
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    He was not a mortal. Therefore it's difficult to judge his existence from a mortals point of view.

    That is kinda the heart of the question.

    What was Jesus made of, did his body function as a normal human body functions. Did he have genetic mutations that are found in all life (on average a human has 60 mutations from their parents base DNA), did he suffer from genetic diseases or conditions. Was he bald? Did he have bad eye sight. Did he have perfect eye sight (itself being unusual). Did he have hair feet?


  • Options
    #30
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Did he have hair feet?

    I think His feet were probably composed of flesh and bones rather than hair. Otherwise the nails would not have held Him to the cross very well. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SubjectSean wrote:
    Roman soldier named Pandeira. All I know is that the prophecy of the Messiah in the Septuagint wherein it specifies he is to be born of a virgin, is actually a mistranslation from the original Hebrew. AFAIK what the passage originally read was 'young woman' and the story we see in the NT is a twisting of the facts in order to fit a mis-percieved prophecy.

    It says "young woman". Just wondering... do you not think that it is possible for a young woman to be also a virgin. That isn't a twisting of facts.


Advertisement