Chili

But parthenogenic reproductions will be partenocarpic. So now what? Fuck the dog and hope for the best?

Steven Avery

Greeings, Ecrasez -- Let's share with you and the forum a bit to consider, and each one can decide whether it should be erased

Yes, that is in fact the case in "parthenogenesis' in mammals.

Even the atheists are aware of this
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...2/ai_102791212
"all reported cases of parthenogenesis in mammals have involved female offspring"

However, the virgin birth was not parthenogenesis, and the Holy Spirit did contribute to the genetic nature of the Lord Jesus Christ

http://custance.org/Library/Volume5/.../Chapter1.html
Chapter 1 - The Virgin Birth
"In mammals, however, parthenogenesis always leads to the birth of a female. ... it is important to note that parthenogenesis in this technical sense could not have led to the birth of a male child, as in Mary's case."

For those who want to study about this, and why the virgin birth was a necessity for the atoning sacrifice of our Messiah, in relationship to His sinless nature, may I suggest the Doorway Papers by Arthur Custance. Perhaps start with the chapter above, which is part of ..

http://custance.org/Library/Volume5/...roduction.html
THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE INCARNATION

Acts 20:28 -
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood.

And then, possible additional research and consideration.

http://anchorstone.com/aoc_update04a.html
NORMAL CHROMOSOMES AND DEVELOPMENT by Dr. Eugene Dunkley
What would the chromosomes of the virgin-born Son of God look like?

http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/36/30/
Chromosomes, Somatids, and the Blood of Christ

http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/QA_DNA.htm
Q & A: Did Jesus have Mary's DNA?

"Chemistry of the Blood" by Martin DeHaan
"The Nature of the Blood", a web article opposing DeHaan by Dr. Borkert
"An Examination of the Chemistry of the Blood" by J. C. Settlemoir

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Susannah

And by the same logic, Eve was male.

Ecrasez L'infame

Thanks, Steven - but I think this will not do.

Assumptions: Suppose Jesus is a true example of parthenogenesis - a rare phenomenon anywhere in nature, and unknown (to science) in mammals outside the laboratory. Suppose God fixed it so that, despite having only 23 haploid chromosomes, Jesus managed to grow into a normal looking human being (one of your links suggested this would be possible if all the genes on those 23 were dominant - I don't know enough, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt). Finally, suppose Jesus is male, and that there's no gender-bendering of the kind suggested by other infidels going on.

Then: God must still have added some DNA to Jesus' mother's gamete so that it contained a Y-chromosome. Where did He get this extra DNA from? Presumably neither He nor the Holy Spirit have any of Their own. From a human man, then? It seems not Joseph - it isn't mentioned that he had any biological function - and, besides, if the extra DNA were from Joseph wouldn't God (who lists parsimony among His greater virtues) have arranged the conception in the normal, messy, way? From some other man, then? But that would be arbitrary (which man? How to choose?)... not to mention immoral. Perhaps God created the extra DNA off His own bat... but, again, what model to use? There's no such thing as perfect DNA, so any choices He made here would again be arbitrary. If we assume God is not arbitrary (if he is, why call him God?), then we have run out of alternatives. One of the assumptions must be wrong.

Ecrasez L'infame

Actually, now I come to think of it - the Gospels could be saying Jesus was female - Greek does not have pronouns, so you can't tell from a verbal phrase whether the subject is male or female.

Only kidding.

Ecrasez L'infame

Sorry, Steven - I just re-read your post and see that you don't regard Jesus' conception as parthenogenesis, since extra DNA was divinely added. But my argument still holds - we just use the word differently (I'm sure your meaning is the right one, and I'm wrong).

Thomas II

The Virgin Birth concept was borrowed from paganism.
The Gospel of Mark does not make reference to it.
In the others it looks like a late addition.
Personally I find it irrelevant and pagan based.
Next!

yummyfur

Ok, to keep my silliness going. Eve could be female since she was not born but made from a part of Adam. Firstly, Adam could have been a true hermaphrodite with XXXY genotype, such a person might have a womb(rib) that could be pulled out and it would be XX, actually their ribs could be XX as well, as they are a mosaic genotypically. Such a person could have functioning male genitalia, though their fertility is often not that great. So if the womb was taken to god's cloning lab, presto it could be female.

Secondly, even in regular males, they all have cells that are XX due to improper chromosome seperation during cell division, we did this in biology lab, they are very easy to find in any guy. So if Eve was cloned from such a cell in god's lab, she would be a female.

Orthodox_Freethinker

No, no, and no. There is nothing to require that the DNA of Jesus was even from the Virgin Mary. The more reasonable explanation would be that God specially created the embryo of Christ.

yummyfur

Cool, that must mean I'm the son of god.

I mean I was found as a baby in a locked bathroom, that only locked from the inside, the only other entrance was a small window, that was sealed shut. There was no sign of anyone giving birth in the bathroom. I think the evidence is clear and the only reasonable explanation is that god created me directly in that bathroom. (sarcasm)

As already pointed out, it is possible to get pregnant from a man while still having an intact hymen, not just from fingering, but from penetration from a very small penis or someone who prematurely ejaculates, or some women have a buffer-hymen that stays fairly intact even after penetratioin. That would be the most reasonable explanation for a historical "virgin" birth, many such pregnancies have been documented. Most of my comments on "possibilities" was for their entertainment value, I agree with Agemegos.