What happens when a modern physician starts asking difficult questions of familiar biblical stories? Here is one answer: an intriguing post covering a topic that will not have occurred to most of us. Let’s think about how a Virgin Birth works when (now, unlike antiquity) we have a pretty good idea of how Births work in general. If God made Mary pregnant through the spirit, what does that have to say about the nature of Jesus’ at the biological level and, well, the chromosomes of God?
This Platinum guest post is delivered to us courtesy of Platinum member Doug Wadeson. As I’ve mentioned, Platinum members can publish posts for other Platinum members, and they then vote on one to go to the blog at large. Doug won *twice* recently, so here’s the second one.
I have to admit, HERE is something I never thought of before! But I don’t know, does it sound controversial to you?
******************************
Does God Have Chromosomes?
Dr. Ehrman has many posts discussing the technical difficulties of the two birth stories of Jesus presented in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. I want to concentrate on one aspect of Jesus’ birth, from a medical science perspective.
You probably know that the Gospels of Mark and John begin with Jesus already as an adult. Perhaps they did not think there was anything unusual or special about Jesus’ birth, or maybe it just did not matter for their portrayal of Jesus. On the other hand Matthew and Luke (using the traditional author names assigned to those Gospels) clearly have reason to detail Jesus’ birth. They both make a point of having Jesus born in Bethlehem, as was thought befitting for the Messiah, but then raised in Nazareth, since people knew that was Jesus’ hometown. But both also make a point of saying that Jesus did not have an earthly father, but rather, in some way, God Himself was the father, so Jesus was literally the Son of God. (It is also worth reviewing James Tabor’s guest posts about the father of Jesus.) Matthew phrases it as “she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit,” without explanation for how that was done. Luke says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”
Very interesting and thought provoking. There are many ways to expand on this.
Whether Jesus was fully human, fully divine, or somehow both was disagreed upon. If God exists, and to whatever extent the Bible reflects actual events, the truth doesn’t necessarily depend on whether anyone got it correct. I see no need to limit options to what orthodoxy or any individual gospels say.
The biological definition of a species is that two individuals can mate to produce fertile offspring, although closely related species can sometimes produce offspring (e.g. a lion and tiger can mate to make a liger). Would you expect then that perhaps humans and angels could mate to produce offspring, but that the giants would have been infertile? Would that suggest the offspring of a deity and a human would be infertile (and less inclined to marry)?
What if God cloned himself and planted an embryo into Mary? Would that mean Jesus is fully God, the same as the father (genetically identical), yet had a human mother/surrogate? Or perhaps some kind of genetic hybrid? If God exists, what are the limits of his genetic engineering skills?
I don’t actually think this of course. Then again, why not?
Right, my article only scratched the surface of where one can go with these ideas.
Jesus Christ absolutely had chromosomes according to being born of Mary & triune God absolute [haven’t read article yet]. though argued with AI.
God gave up as his OT & NT promises weren’t faithful!
Mary had chromosomes but why would God?
whenever Jesus became divine.
& then the perverted orthodoxy I learned of the triune God.
Before 2015, I understood the Lord or HS. & I understood the HS. But I need understood Jesus and how we had to “love” Him et al.
some guy on Quora said I am perverting judiasm with something like modern Christianity.
https://www.quora.com/Wasn-t-Yahweh-God-the-father-and-Jesus-Christ-the-Son
1st year of undergrad at the childhood cult I grew up, we handed out a small booklet “mystery of human life.” Now thinking back, they based their biblical references from KJV.
on the cross, the divine portion of Jesus couldn’t die as the human portion could or else the universe and time would end.
I appreciate your medical expertise, this is my overzealous justifications of the Anthology & Trinity & life
BTW I chose complete obedience, what else is the alternative
& you are most understandable on complex issues as Dr Ehrman is also!
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As for “complete obedience” the question for me is who or what to obey? I’m not convinced that the ancients had any more access to spiritual truth than you or me. It’s a continual search, not a done deal.
thank U DrWadeson for questioning my assertions.
I followed the Republican Right Preachers of the 1970-early 90s & did do what they told us. As for books directing me to deciphering the biblical anthology to live wholly for God: Andrew Murray’s New Life & Watchman Nee’s The Normal Christian Life.
I went Shanghai to live fully “Thy Kingdom Come” & ” Go ye into all the world, &preach the gospel to every creature”
I lived & smothered God to walk fully worthy as the church I grew up in preached at camps in my JrHighSchool- don’t miss the bus.
2009 I was stuck in a stupor. As Jay Newman of Maranatha Campus Crusade accused me b/f my 2nd baptism 02/02/87.
From thence to 2015 I was stuck in suicidal fog. & Yes, my Uncle pointed me to Dr Ehrman & Dr Levine to ease me into normalcy.
but when he asked me to change, I responded to what: this has promises for utter obedience.
that’s what I maintain as the USA churches have to repent for its sin – intercession!
Thanks!!!! As I need to recall why I am living such.
A Christian: follows God, & is best obedient to !0Commandments & Jesus Sermon, loves neighbor &is humble
Funny you mentioned the Ten Commandments. I just finished an article I might submit to Dr. Ehrman that relates. Few people turn the page from Exodus 20 to Exodus 21 to see what the next set of laws address. I think it’s important to understand what most mattered to the people who developed the Law.
A fantastic essay. Along those same lines, whose DNA would Adam have? As a legendary figure, I guess it doesn’t matter. OTOH, Jesus was a historical figure. I bet you could blow a bunch of fundamentalist/evangelists’ minds with this supposition. Thank you, Doug for opening this door. On an off-topic suggestion by Bart I’ve read Candida Moss’s book in the (non)persecution of early Xtns and am fifty pages into Jill Hicks-Keeton’s “Good Book. Both are worthy reads. Highly recommended.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I’m also reading “Good Book”! Very enlightening.
Great article, thanks. It seems God needs to grow a pair ( of chromosomes).
Ha! Thanks for reading and commenting.
Thanks for the discussion; it’s something I’ve wondered about for years. Since I’m not religious, it’s not a real issue for me, but it’s amusing to consider.
I also find such speculation amusing, but for those who take these doctrinal statements as absolute truth I think they need to consider all the implications, technological not just theological.
I am a practicing Radiologist and I very much enjoyed and appreciate this article. “If modern theology wants to be taken seriously then it needs to accommodate modern knowledge”…..Thank you.
I feel I should mention that there is a chapter that explores this topic (as well as other related ones) in my book The A to Z of the New Testament. The title of the chapter is “Y Chromosome?” 🙂
Sounds interesting! I’ll have to track that down.
> The title of the chapter is “Y Chromosome?”
I’ll have to check the book out. The Y chromosome is exactly the question that I’ve had. If it came from Yahweh, it must have been pretty special.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Well presented! I have actually wondered about Jesus’ (and Eve’s) DNA recently.
And if God created the missing DNA, how and why did he make his choices?
Years ago I presented a paper at a symposium about the ethics of human cloning and suggested tongue-in-cheek that God could have cloned Adam into Eve by stripping off his Y chromosome and doubling up his X chromosome. In which case it would be like he was married to an identical twin sister! The ancients weren’t weighed down with such technical knowledge, so they were free to tell their tales without reservations.
Not silly! Terrific.
Thank you!
If Jesus had been able to send a saliva sample to 23andme, would the results say things like: probably won’t like the taste of cilantro and male pattern baldness likely?
Would it resolve paternity issues of any children born to Mary Magdalene?
It is interesting how as a Christian I could waive all of this away as unimportant. Now on the outside, I realize all my waiving was because there weren’t easy rationalizations.
Please do me a favor and write a post on who (or what) died on the cross? A man, a spirit, a God? If God died or was somehow separated from the Father, that poses serious challenges to God’s eternal and unchanging nature. If only the man died, how can that atone for the sins of everyone else?
I’ve had that same question: in what sense did Jesus die and how would that pay for our sins? I know Dr. Ehrman has posts about what early Christians thought about Jesus as man, god, both or neither, but not sure he specifically answers this question.
Bart would answer using concepts of the divine held at the time of Jesus. What I want to know is how modern theologians make sense of it given the Nicaean creed’s view of Jesus’ divinity.
I know Dr. E has said that the theology of atonement – that Jesus had to die for sins – is a thorny issue in modern theology. We need to search his past posts to see if he addresses it.
I’ve considered this very issue and came up with IVF. God simply extracted Joseph’s Y gamete and fertilized Mary’s X. Hey, if humans can do it, so can God. This also solves the problem of descent from David. This may be the method by which 90 y.o. Sarah begot Isaac.
Interesting approach, but then how is Jesus God’s son?
humans don’t understand the divine.
For instance. God directly told Eve not to eat the other tree. & the Serpent was confirming of what the Creator actually said.
In Sunday School & pulpits: The Serpent was/is Sin!
But the serpent contradicted what God said: God said, “For on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.” The serpent said no, and sure enough, Adam lived for another 930 years! The Garden of Eden story bothers me: it seems to teach that dumb obedience is better than knowledge. America just celebrated its Independence Day, where our ancestors sacrificed life for freedom. That’s what Adam and Eve did, yet we condemn them for it!
“dumb obedience is better than knowledge. ”
I think of mine as difficult obedience for my LOVE of thy kingdom come & believing the Promises. thank you for correcting me, but was the serpent incorrect & was God’s accusation accurate?
2) ” 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. 9For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, ”
how would st Paul know this? Not through his “meeting Jesus” but through his intelligence.
the group I grew up: we were to cast our OLD nature on the Cross & daily take Jesus’ blood to cleanse our not overt sins.
so 2024, are the Facist evangelicals [Robert Reich] obedient the least & following Jesus’ & St Paul preaching & 10 Commandments as a “christian” was stereotyped as
Adam and Eve (according to the story) had to choose between life and knowledge. Now we have knowledge and our choice is obedience or disobedience. It’s a different situation.
I suppose one could posit that, since God “impregnated” Mary via IVF, that establishes a “father/son” relationship, but that would pose an interesting question about a modern physician performing IVF.
To answer your post question, I favor an adoptionist view, with the actual adoption at the time of Jesus’ death.
Philippians 2:8, 9 would support such a view.
How is Jesus God’s son? IVF – in virgo fertilization – that’s how!
I’ll have to remember that term!
Implausible as the virgin birth may be, believers will accept it no matter how much science you provide. People believe in miracles. I don’t believe in the supernatural per se. If something ‘’supernatural’’ exists, it wouldn’t defy scientific laws but would represent an aspect of nature we don’t understand. Exceptional claims require proof, especially when other explanations seem far more likely. Still, generally speaking at least, I don’t think something impossible simply because we don’t understand how it might work. Cavemen might think we’re gods. What might we be capable of in 100,000 years (if we don’t go extinct or back the dark ages)?
I believe in evolution, but is it really a fact? We can’t go back a million years to verify. For these reasons, I’m sympathetic to apologists. I don’t think they’re irrational for questioning science or blame them for being unfamiliar with genetics. What I find less rational is rejecting science ‘’in favor of’’ creationism.
Have you ever rejected the opinion of an expert from another medical specialty who knew more about a subject than you, say on a complex shared case, confident you were right? How different is that from a believer rejecting science for faith?
It’s very different! Making a decision which has some evidence behind it, even if someone else disagrees with me, is much different than inventing theology which has no evidence behind it. In this case the idea that Jesus was born to a virgin and yet was fully human goes against our knowledge of how reproduction works, but I know for the faithful it won’t matter: the ways of God are mysterious!
I agree it’s different yet opine maybe less so than often thought. People trust what they know (or at least think they now). Science offers many relative certainties and likelihoods, not so much absolute certainty. I also question what level of certainty is required for rational belief. What is more certain, that a dropped object will accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s, or that someone’s partner/family loves them? Which is more provable? What matters more? The virgin birth is not the best example to ask these questions. I do think though that proof is not required for rational/reasonable/meaningful belief.
Funny enough, yesterday I watched Star Trek TNG. The episode in which Kalas (Klingon of folklore) returns was on. Ultimately, he proves to have been a clone, and they ask who’s to say this isn’t what the prophecy meant when he’d return one day. Try applying that to the trinity. If Jeus was the clone of God, he could be just as God as the Father yet separate. Maybe being made in God’s image means having 23 pairs of chromosomes, perhaps not expressed to full capacity to be godlike (angels express a bit more). Who’s to say what the nature of God is?
Hmmm, does God have both dominant and recessive genes? How would they be expressed in Jesus, with a human mother? The questions are endless!
If Jesus was a clone, he wouldn’t have Mary’s chromosomes. She would be a surrogate and adoptive mother. The Bible does still call Joseph Jesus’ father. Without Mary’s genes there is problem in arguing that Jesus was human, but there were early Christians who believed he wasn’t. Add to this exercise that different Christians hold different beliefs, and God could exist even if all religions are wrong, as you said the possibilities are endless.
I’m not sure I agree God couldn’t have chromosomes. Why not? Who’s to say what the nature of God is? Even if someone could prove to me that angels existed, I would not concede they offered proof of the supernatural. I would conclude that our understanding was limited, it has just been expanded, and we have more to figure out. Whatever the nature of the ‘’supernatural’’ must be, it has to be something.
Although the ancients knew nothing of genetics or ontogeny, they did make some distinctions that we tend to ignore. Anthropologists who study kinship recognize, inter alia, distinctions between genitor (biological father), pater (legal or rule-governed father), and “father” as the man everyone believes or accepts to be your dad. Normally, these coincide, but not always (as in adoption). That the ancients were well aware of such distinctions is evidenced in the fact that they knew “Christ” to be a social position, not a biological marker. It was common in Roman parlance for an “anointed” ruler to be honored as a Son of God (as many Emperors were). So adoptionism isn’t far off the mark. Jesus was (for Christians) *a* Christ. But there were theological/soteriological flies in the ointment: e.g. the Christian view of transmission of Original Sin. How was *that* supposed to fit into the picture? And, in what sense was Jesus anointed as *the* once-and-forever Son of God? Theology did have to do some heavy lifting here; no wonder the Fathers squabbled. I doubt they would have accepted modern genetics as providing an answer.
I think it’s the mechanics of the virgin birth that is the problem. The adoptionist view avoids such issues. I believe Dr. E has posted that in the Roman culture adopted sons were sometimes held in higher regard than the natural sons; they were chosen to be part of the family, not a matter of birth accident. Makes me wonder why they introduced the virgin birth to make Jesus literally a son of God rather than an adopted one.
I believe the purpose of fabricating the story of virgin birth is to enable Jesus to fulfill the prophecy of “the seed of women”.
Because “the seed of women” is a key prophecy of the Messiah, the Savior.
It’s a “key prophecy” for Christians, but not for Jews, who took the phrase to mean all humanity, descended from Eve. Of course, the gospel writers were advocating Christian doctrine, so this may have been part of the reason for the virgin birth story, as you say.
Do Jews generally hold this view? If explained in this way, “seed of women” would be meaningless because we are all seeds of Eve.
In theory, only the God who inspired prophecy, the prophet who prophesied, and the Messiah who was prophesied can clearly understand the true meaning of prophecy. For example, I know the true meaning of “seed of women” and have provided clear and detailed explanations in my book.
But strangely, although people do not know the true meaning of prophecy, they generally know that a certain sentence is a prophecy, which seems to be a mysterious intuition that people generally possess.
For example, “wonderful counselor”, “Prince of Peace”, and “seed of women” are widely regarded as prophecies about the Messiah.
This universal feeling was ultimately confirmed by me to be correct.
How do we vote on posts? I’m always impressed by your thoughts.
I’m thinking Jesus was not born from a virgin but as a human who was divinely favored. No chromosome issue there.
Platinum members get to vote once a quarter; Dr. E puts out a post about it. Yes, I think the idea of Jesus as a righteous human chosen by God avoids all these issues. BTW, I’m starting a blog for my Bible articles: TheBibleUndressed.blog, will add posts as time goes on.
Thanks for this post.
In one of his books (probably “Miracles,” but I don’t have it at hand to check) C. S. Lewis says something about how it’s no more perplexing to think that “God could create a miraculous spermatazoon in the body of a virgin” than to accept any other form of miracle.
So at least Lewis grasped the problem: Jesus had to have those 23 chromosomes coming from somewhere, and given that Mary was a human woman with a normally functioning reproductive system, those 23 chromosomes had to arrive in the form of a sperm. But even when I was a Christian and a great admirer of Lewis, I found that the “creating a miraculous spermatozoon” inside Mary’s body raised more questions than it answered.
Right, then as I suggested perhaps we should call Jesus the “creation of God” rather than the “son of God.”
I’m not sure I buy the idea of “father” as exclusive to genetic material carried by the offspring. Nowhere does the NT suggest that (nor could it for quite a few more centuries). If Jesus carried a full set of chromosomes as if human, then perhaps he was created through the process of parthenogenesis and is basically a clone of Mary. Maybe it was God through the angel Gabriel that got the process started. God could then infuse Jesus with the knowledge, awareness and special gifts needed (as a good father would do for his son) to fulfill his mission on earth because, well you know, He’s God.
I think the earliest believers probably thought it was at his baptism that Jesus was infused with God’s spirit, as suggested in Mark 1. But then when they decided to make Jesus born as a literal son of God as in Matthew and Luke, which included a virgin birth, that introduced issues they didn’t think about or know about. And then in John Jesus existed even before he was born, so he doesn’t even bother with a birth story; his earthly birth didn’t seem to matter in that case.
This is one of my favorite subjects! Development from a unfertilized egg is called parthenogenesis and does occur in nature. An unfertilized egg has a single set of chromosomes; a human egg has either an X or a Y. In order to be viable, the chromosome number per cell would have to double. Therefore two outcomes are possible: one is two X chromosomes which would be inviable, and the other is two X’s, which means Jesus was a woman!
Now I have wondered about the impregnation by holy spirit. That’s pretty vague in terms of mechanistics. Ancient mythology (and that’s what this is) is rife with couplings between gods and mortals, even the bible. Leaving that aside, if the story of Jesus having existed before his incarnation, then he would have been an active member of the holy trinity at the time of Mary’s impregnation by the holy spirit. In other words, Jesus impregnated his mother, Mary!
What fun!
Yeah, you can get into some convoluted scenarios if you think too hard. I’m not sure who started the virgin birth idea, but I doubt they realized the problems it might cause.
“a human egg has either an X or a Y”
Unless I am very seriously mistaken, the Y chromosome is carried only by the male gamete — i.e., the sperm, which can be either X or Y. The female gamete — i.e., the egg — can only be X . Males have a Y chromosome. Females do not. If an X-bearing sperm unites with the X-bearing egg, the child is female. If a Y-bearing sperm unites with the X-bearing egg, the child is male. This is why a child’s sex is determined by the father and not by the mother, despite women having been blamed for centuries for their “failure” to bear sons.
Thus, if parthenogenesis were possible in humans (which it isn’t), the resulting embryo could only be female.
It would obviously be considered heresy by just about everyone that God has chromosomes. It not only flies in the face of transcendence, but also implies that some genes are more godlike than others. There has always been a figurative aspect to the understanding of Jesus as the son of God.
Since the actual chromosomes don’t matter, God might as well honour Joseph by copying his chromosomes. If, in a wildly hypothetical scenario, we found genetic material from Jesus, I am sure the result would be consistent with that hypothesis.
Well, that doesn’t seem fair. Joseph is the father, but he misses out on the fun of doing the impregnating himself!
To paraphrase Lucian – Awkward Questions for Christians! 🙂
I think the last paragraph contains the answer. A human being was exalted to a sort of divine status by later followers starting with Paul who while not directly equating his “Christ Jesus” with God did see this figure as something more than human.
Paul’s writings were taken and developed by individuals who came from the Hellenised world. Thus leading to all those fascinating and often hilarious theories and controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.
I personally think that if they had portrayed Jesus as either an exalted human, or a divine being but not literally God, it would make more sense. But even as it is Christianity has reached 2 billion people, so hard to argue that the orthodox doctrine didn’t work, I suppose.
I live on Pineisland. Let’s go get after some inshore species and discuss this.
The most sensible comment I’ve heard yet!
Dr. Wadeson,
First, I wonder if Matthew/Luke had not read the Septuagint, would there ever have been a legend of a virgin birth of the Messiah.
Second, as a former fundamentalist I have an immediate answer: God doesn’t need to possess chromosomes or DNA to create offspring in Mary any more than when creating Adam and Eve. God created everything, including Life with a capital L, ex nihilo. Putting the correct mechanisms into Mary for a child… compared to creating the universe??? Really? Are you seriously trying to make an argument with this?
Your post might put one in the quiver of non believers, but how do you see your argument reaching believers?
As I said in the article, if God created Jesus’ chromosomes, then how is he God’s son? He’d be the “Creation of God” not the “Son of God.” I doubt that such musings are going to sway stalwart believers, but hopefully it will cause some people to at least pause and think about whether some of these ancient stories simply represent ancient thinking rather than divine knowledge.
Thoroughly enjoyed your article- in the end extremely thought provoking – congratulations!!
Thanks for reading and commenting. I’m starting a blog to post my unconventional Bible articles, TheBibleUndressed.blog, if you want to check it out.
God painstakingly created a chromosome, then put it in Mary’s womb, and then made Jesus perform miracles to attract people’s attention, and then regained Jesus’ power to let him die on the cross. God redeemed people’s sins with the death of Jesus.
Do you think that such a God is obviously a bit mentally disabled. Shouldn’t he directly pardon people’s sins if he wants to do it?
So I think this story is completely nonsense, and I agree with another view: Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier.
Bart had an episode on his Misquoting Jesus podcast (May 21) where he discusses the issue of whether it makes sense for Jesus to have to suffer. Even in the Lord’s Prayer, which many Christians recite regularly, it suggests that God can forgive sins, with no mention of the need for atoning blood.
Yes, as a professional scholar, Bart knows a lot of the truth, but I feel like sometimes it’s inconvenient for him to speak directly.
The story of Jesus’s father being a Roman soldier was made up by the Talmud a few hundred years later, by which point Christian antagonism toward Jews for not accepting Jesus had been ongoing for centuries. The rabbis were probably just chatting as they often did, and most likely didn’t mean to be taken seriously.
Firstly, Jesus is definitely not the son of God, otherwise he would be able to perform true miracles. He is just a human son.
Secondly, the powerful Roman soldiers were more sexually competitive than the Jewish men of the time.
Thirdly, the Jews at that time were aware of the truth, so later Talmud’s statement should have been true rather than fabricated.
Fourthly, why was the Roman governor unwilling to sentence Jesus to death? Does this indicate that the Roman governor also knew that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier?
Have you read James Tabor’s book “The Jesus Dynasty?” He goes into detail on his thoughts of Jesus’ family.
No, I haven’t read it.
The viewpoint I mentioned above was heard from others, and based on common sense reasoning and judgment, I believe that this viewpoint is more likely. However, it is ultimately my guess and has no basis.
There is no conclusive evidence in biblical research on many things, and many things can only be guessed, so everyone can refuse to accept the conclusion of speculation.
However, it cannot be denied that the possibility of “Jesus’ biological father being a Roman soldier” exists, while the possibility of “Jesus being the son of God” absolutely does not exist. It’s just ignorant boasting.
Due to ignorance, ancient religious figures and missionaries were able to fully unleash their imagination and freely boast and speak nonsense.
2nd: You assume, first, that just because the Romans were professional soldiers, they were more sexually competitive than Jewish men. Physical strength is not the only source of “sexual competitiveness” and in any case these same Jewish men fought off the Roman army for several years in the Great Revolt. Second, you assume that Jewish women would be attracted to Roman soldiers, but almost all Jews, men and women, despised the Romans and wanted nothing to do with them.
3rd: There is no contemporary record of Jews being aware of this “truth” and the Talmud is hundreds of years later.
4th: Pilate was perfectly willing to execute Jesus, according to the critical scholarship. Jesus’s being the bastard son of a Roman soldier wouldn’t have mattered one bit.
1st: You are correct. That’s one out of four.
According to the description of the New Testament, Pilate was not originally planning to sentence Jesus to death, but it was only at the strong demand of the Jews that Jesus was sentenced to death. Why did Pilate have such an attitude?
Talmud said that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier, which should also be their inference(I have made a correction based on your opinion here). What is their inference based on? Is it also inferred based on Pilate’s attitude?
During World War II, some French women found the mighty German occupation soldiers very sexually attractive.
Of course, these are ultimately unfounded deductions made by people. Unless Maria’s neighbors appear in front of us to provide conclusive evidence, everyone is making unfounded inferences and unfounded denials.
This is because people have insufficient evidence, and only the records of the New Testament can be used as evidence, but the records of the New Testament are considered dishonest.
I usually go with the simplest answer, which in this case would be that Joseph was indeed Jesus’ father. The virgin birth story came later in order to deify Jesus.
I think the virgin birth story was also invented to appeal to those in the Greek world who liked such stories. Much later, it became part of the rationale for Augustine’s “original sin” which he blamed on Adam, not Eve.
Jesus explained to people the prophecies about himself in the Old Testament.
So Jesus initially claimed to be the Messiah of the Old Testament prophecies, and the story of the virgin birth should mainly be about the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy.
If modern theology wants to be taken seriously then it needs to accommodate modern knowledge and not pretend that we are living 2,000 years in the past, in the days of Hercules and the Nephilim.
——————————–
Yes, ancient false theology has been going on for too long, and with the development of history, ancient false theology will definitely be eradicated. Jesus will surely fall to pieces, because Jesus is just an ancient scammer .
The false miracle played by Jesus was an insult to the IQ of the Jewish people at that time.
Similarly, the ancient false theology that continues to exist today is also an insult to the IQ of modern people.
I’m not sure – people seem to have a great capacity for holding onto religious tradition even in the face of new knowledge. We’ll see.
Yes, I have the same feeling.
I have read your blog and your posts are very persuasive. I have been doing the same thing on the Chinese internet for a long time, such as https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/205455386
But Christians always try to argue with you first, and then find that your evidences are irrefutable, they refuse to discuss and pretend that you do not exist.
You cannot wake a person who pretends to sleep. Unless?
Unless there is a huge event that can greatly shake them. Unless the true Messiah arrives and personally proves that Jesus was just a scammer, and causes a sensation in the world, otherwise, false ancient theology will continue to exist as if nothing has happened.
This is one of my missions. I am the author of “Doomsday for Jesus: True Messiah Judges Scammer Jesus”, and I undertake the mission of shattering the scammer Jesus and correcting ancient false theology, so I am doing this work.
If you have time, I welcome you to take a look at my book. It is free on Amazon from July 16th to July 20th.
This book provides the highest level of explanation for the prophecies of the Messiah.
Very interesting topic and a definate stumbling block for Religions, as Religions are anchored in ancient beliefs and understandings of the world and “nature” of an ancient time. Paul is Romans 1:20 makes a interesting statement, in that mankinds understanding of God invisible qualities, eternal power and devine “nature” is gained through the knowlege and understanding of what was created by God. Therefore, as mankinds knowlege and understanding (science) expands, so does mankinds understanding of God expand. This is contrary to Religion which holds to the ancient beliefs and understandings requiring faith. History is full of such Religios blind faith contridicting expanded knowlege with Galileo as a prime example. It took the Roman Catholic Church 350 years after Galileo’s trial to accept the earth as a sphere. Science does not disprove God (creator), but just changes the perspective of God. Biblical literism cannot hold up being locked into the literal world/knowlege of past milleniums.
So.. Does God have chromosomes, or did God “create” chromosomes? Jesus could not have been a living being (as current definition) without chromosomes. Paul infers God is “invisible” thus not necessarily a “being” thus most likely without chromosomes.
Thanks for reading and commenting. For me, religion should be about seeking truth, not holding to ancient dogma. The ancients had their thoughts, but that doesn’t mean we can’t move on.