Medical issue regarding Jesus' birth (I know, it's a weird topic)...

Okay, so I learned, among other things, this semester in Biology about meiosis, which is basically (without getting into the actual science) sexual reproduction. What was interesting about this, among an entire array of things, is asexual reproduction, which produces clones. Bacteria do this, and it's interesting to note that a shark did this recently. When an animal does this, if I am correct, only the mother's DNA is present in the child, which basically makes a clone of the mother (as, again, without getting too much into details, genes from both parents do not mix, which would produce a unique individual).

So what about Jesus' birth? We have all heard about this virgin birth, right? If Mary really did not have sexual intercourse prior to conceiving, and if she had no sperm in her from anyone (or God even), then shouldn't Jesus have been a girl (and even a clone of Mary)? I know this is a bit out there, but I find this very interesting.

Well I do know that female turkeys can asexually reproduce when no males are present, but humans do not. The Bible story says that the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary (not sex, infinitely more transcendental, symbolic, and meaningful). If one wants to scientifically speculate on the New Testament though, Mary's Virgin birth is a miracle because regardless of if the clone would be a girl, humans cannot, in the current understanding of biology, have a virgin birth. If it happened, it was inexplicable to us and thus more interesting and beautiful.

Well, if one takes the Bible literally, it points out that God created Jesus in the womb of Mary, in other words Jesus basically just 'was', there wasn't any form of fertilization, etc, He was just spoken into existence. Technically he wouldn't have had any of Mary's DNA, either, hence his reluctance to call her 'mother' as he got older. She was something of a 'surrogate' mother, not related to Jesus at all.

But if you don't take the Bible literally, then that is a very interesting theory...gotta be one of the weirdest phenomenons I've heard of! Wonder if it has ever been reported in a human?

The way I see it is you either accept the virgin birth as an act of god or else you don't. If you don't believe in god, or don't believe god placed Jesus in the womb, then this speculation really is a non-issue isn't it?

scientifically...yes, but what you are missing is the fact that the story of Jesus is not held by the bonds of earth....he was divine, God's son, sent from heaven.....omnipotent, omniesent, supernatural, the story was divine intervention, not held by the bonds of science. its not something you can put scientific query on.

reply to post by they see ALL


If it were a-sexual reproduction why has it not happened since?

If this is true I guess your question is moot:

Matthew's mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma was deliberate, not the result of his unwitting decision to quote from a defective Greek translation of the Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is not speaking of the birth of a messiah at all.5 This fact remains obvious even to the most casual reader of the seventh chapter of Isaiah.

For Matthew, the prophet's original intent regarding the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 was entirely superseded by his fervid desire to somehow prove to the Jewish people that the virgin birth was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures. Bear in mind that the author of the first Gospel -- more than any other writer in the New Testament -- shaped and contoured his treatise with the deliberate purpose of promoting Christianity among the Jews. In essence, Matthew was writing with a Jewish audience in mind. He understood that in order to convince the Jewish people to embrace Jesus as the messiah, it was essential to demonstrate his claim of the virgin birth from the Jewish scriptures. Luke, in contrast, was writing for a non-Jewish, Greek audience and therefore makes no attempt to support his version of the virgin birth from the Hebrew Bible.

In his attempt to promote numerous Christian creeds among the Jews, Matthew was faced with a serious quandary. How would he prove that Jesus was the messiah from the Jewish scriptures when there is no relationship between the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament and the messianic prophecies of the Jewish scriptures? How was he going to merge newly inculcated pagan myths, such as the virgin birth, into Christianity with a Hebrew Bible in which a belief in a virgin birth was unknown?

Does alma mean virgin or simply "young woman"?