• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Explaining The Virgin Birth?

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
Christmas is approaching and this made me think about the virgin birth, in Christianity…

So according to scripture, Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit - who impregnated his mother, Mary

It did so without engaging in sexual intercourse, so although she was impregnated she remained a virgin

Some issues come to mind that perhaps we could debate and/or discuss:
  1. Can this be explained, or must it remain a mystery?
  2. Did Jesus exist before his mother was impregnated?
  3. How can a human egg be fertilised without sperm?
  4. Where did the 50% of Jesus’s DNA that was not from his mother come from, if no sperm were involved?
  5. If no sperm was involved wouldn’t that mean that Jesus wasn’t actually conceived?
What I think must have happened is that the Holy Spirit made a zygote materialise in Mary’s womb, which then attached itself to her and turned into the embryonic Jesus
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
There are some interesting gnostic takes to your questions, such as Jesus only appeared to be a human, and so forth. As I don't know a great deal about them I can't go on at length. The answer to your second question would likely vary based on which gospel account you read. I don't think it would be hard for G-d to materialise some male cells to the mix, so that one's likely not a bother for most. It's probably also best to keep in mind as well that during that period in history, a lot of folks believed the female added nothing to the mix and essentially just incubated the semen until a baby formed (the belief was semen contained everything needed for this), so issues like your number 4 are very modern if G-d can just magic a baby/some semen in there, but it is interesting to think about.
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
It's probably also best to keep in mind as well that during that period in history, a lot of folks believed the female added nothing to the mix and essentially just incubated the semen until a baby formed (the belief was semen contained everything needed for this),
I did not know that

I suppose if you believe that a baby grows out of the father's contribution and that the mother contributes nothing "to the mix" then the miraculous conception of Jesus would have been much less problematic back in the early days of Christianity when people believed that - and that certain questions would never have occurred to them, as you said in your post

This also makes me think that the story of the Virgin Birth was not intended for modern audiences!

Although I don't see why it's not possible for God to implant zygotes into people as a means of making them pregnant!
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Angela Volpini a seer who claims Our Lady used to appear to her many times in the 50s explains that Mary represents the fulfillment of mankind.
That is the Love every human is supposed to feel towards every human being.
And that Love enabled God to turn into flesh inside her womb...which is similar to the mystery of Birth itself (that is two cells form a human being).

And Angela said many times : I have understood that she fell in Love with God so deeply that she was able to have Him incarnated inside her womb.

What I think is pretty similar. I do think the process took place with neither reproductive cell. Neither Xy nor Xx. It took place in another way, by miracle.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The most likely explanation is that it never happened. The story was merely an attempt at matching the Jesus story to prophecy. This was a rather poor job since the author based his story on a non-prophecy from a bungled translation from the Septuagint.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I did not know that

I suppose if you believe that a baby grows out of the father's contribution and that the mother contributes nothing "to the mix" then the miraculous conception of Jesus would have been much less problematic back in the early days of Christianity when people believed that - and that certain questions would never have occurred to them, as you said in your post

This also makes me think that the story of the Virgin Birth was not intended for modern audiences!

Although I don't see why it's not possible for God to implant zygotes into people as a means of making them pregnant!
Think of it like planting a seed in a field; no matter which soil you use, you are always going to end up with whatever it is the seed came from - so a barely seed, no matter in which terrain you plant it, will always yield barley; an apple seed will always give an apple tree etc. It also goes a way to understanding why women were often blamed for lack of children - if the soil is bad, the seed won't germinate.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
From a scholarly perspective the doctrine of the Virgin Birth raises many questions, inasmuch as our earliest 'extant' sources - the Pauline epistles and Gospel of Mark - make no (apparent?) allusions to it.

St. Paul seems to assume that Jesus had an ordinary parentage, which he refers to in passing without a hint of controversy or terrible fascination. Some examples:


"The gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans: 3-4)

Paul doesn't mention Mary or Joseph by name, because he's not writing a biography but rather dispatching ad hoc letters to churches and thus only mentioning things in passing. In terms of his Davdic lineage "according to the flesh" comment: I just can't think a knowledgeable first century Jew like him would have said this in reference to maternal lineage, so the surface text seems to insinuate that Jesus was a paternal Davidic descendant through his father.


"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4 RSV).

Note nothing about a 'virgin', as the scholar James Dunn opines:


"He [Paul] mentions that Jesus was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4.4), a typical Jewish circumlocution for a human person." (The Theology of Paul the Apostle (p. 183))

The idea that Jesus had a normal human conception as a conequence of sexual relations between his parents, was likewise the belief of a number of early Jewish and gnostic Christian sects, including the Ebionites, Simonians, Cerinthians and Carpocratians.

One of the 'Ebionite' sects are described as follows by the fourth century church father, St. Epiphanius:


For since they wish Jesus to be in reality a man, as I have said before, Christ came in him having descended in the form of a dove and was joined to him (as already we have found among other heresies also), and became the Christ from God above, but Jesus was born from the seed of man and woman.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 30.14.4-5

And Eusebius too:


The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.


— Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Chp. 27​


The Cerinthians, a first century Gnosticizing Judaic-chialist sect of early Christianity, likewise rejected the virgin birth narrative:


Cerinthus from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.


Cerinthus (Κήρινθος), a heresiarch, who lived in the time of the apostle John, towards the end of the first and at the beginning of the second century. The accounts of the ancients and the opinions of modern writers are equally at variance with respect to him. He was a Jew by nation and religion, who, after having studied in the schools of Alexandria, appeared in Palestine, and spread his errors chiefly in Asia Minor. Our sources of information as to his doctrines are Irenaeus, adv. Haer. 1:26; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3:28; 7:25; Epiphanius, Haer. 28; and Theodoret, Fab. Haer. 2:3 (Opp. tom. 3)...

Irenaeus says, 'Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a certain power (Demiurge) separate from Him, and below Him, and ignorant of Him. Jesus he supposed not to be born of a virgin, but to be the son of Joseph and Mary, born altogether as other men are; but he excelled all men in virtue, knowledge, and wisdom.

At His baptism, the Christ came down upon Him, from God who is over all, in the shape of a dove; and then He declared to the world the unknown Father, and wrought miracles. At the end, the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose again, but the Christ, being spiritual, was impassible.'

Epiphanius says nearly the same, but asserts that Cerinthus taught that the world was made by angels, and that he opposed the apostles in Judaea. It appears that Cerinthus considered Christ an ordinary man, born in the usual way, and devoid of miraculous powers, but distinguished from the rest of the Jews by possessing superior wisdom, so that He was worthy to be chosen as the Messiah; that he knew nothing of his high dignity till it was revealed to Him in His baptism by John, when He was consecrated to the Messiahship, and furnished with the necessary powers for the fulfillment of His office by the descent of the supreme Logos or Spirit from the heavens, which hung over Him like a dove, and at length entered into His heart; that He was then raised to the dignity of the Son of God, began to perform miracles, and even angels were now taught by His revelations; that redemption could not be effected by His sufferings. Jesus, in union with the mighty Spirit of God, could not suffer, but must triumph over all His enemies.

The very fact of suffering was assumled to be a proof that the Spirit of God, which had been previously united to Him, was now separated from Him, and had returned to the Father. The sufferings were of the man Jesus, now left to himself. Cerinthus denied also the resurrection of Christ. He adhered in part to Judaism, and considered the Mosaic law binding on Christians. He taught that the righteous would enjoy a paradise of delights in Palestine, and that the man Jesus, through the power of the Logos again coming upon him, as the Messiah, would reign a thousand years" (Farrar, Ecclesiastes Dict. s.v.).

It is supposed that Cerinthus and his doctrines are alluded to in John's Gospel. The system of Cerinthus seems to combine Ebionitism with Gnosticism, and the Judaeo-Christian millenarianism

I'm not really clear in my mind where Matthew and Luke derived the virgin birth doctrine from. And the differences between them make it improbable that either was derived from the other, or that they shared a common written source.

Nevertheless, they both attest to the doctrine seemingly 'independently' - so I presume it must have been based on an earlier oral tradition circulating in the early church communities.

So, we have two independent witnesses to the Virgin birth but which totally diverge about almost everything else concerning it. As such, I think they both heard about the tradition that had been passed down in respect of a virginal conception and birth, and then wrote their own frame stories based on the scant information.
 
Last edited:

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
Think of it like planting a seed in a field; no matter which soil you use, you are always going to end up with whatever it is the seed came from - so a barely seed, no matter in which terrain you plant it, will always yield barley; an apple seed will always give an apple tree etc. It also goes a way to understanding why women were often blamed for lack of children - if the soil is bad, the seed won't germinate.
But I thought Jewishness was inherited from the mother, as opposed to the father?

How do you think that goes with the notion that children grew out of the seed of their fathers without any genetic input from the mother?

To me they seem contridictory
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
But I thought Jewishness was inherited from the mother, as opposed to the father?

How do you think that goes with the notion that children grew out of the seed of their fathers without any genetic input from the mother?

To me they seem contridictory
I'm not saying that was the Jewish view necessarily, but that it was the common view among most people at that time. However, as a convert is also considered part of Israel without having a Jewish mother, it seems less about DNA (which obviously wasn't known about then) and more about one's soul and which path it should be on.

The authors of the virgin birth story were Hellenised Jews, also, so their science would have been largely Greek.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
But I thought Jewishness was inherited from the mother, as opposed to the father?

How do you think that goes with the notion that children grew out of the seed of their fathers without any genetic input from the mother?

To me they seem contridictory
The Input from the mother is called mitocondrial DNA and we all have it regardless of our sex.
 

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
So according to scripture, Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit - who impregnated his mother, Mary


Dear Eddi

If we consider that the only thing the Holy Spirit can impregnate in Man is access to a sort of Divine “perspective” - an ability to understand things past worldliness; beyond manifested reality, so to speak - then, the passages related to her conception, receive a whole different meaning.

If you’d like to explore this, contemplate (deep spiritual reflection) upon that and then re-examine the Scripture. It is most interesting!

Humbly
Hermit
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
The Input from the mother is called mitocondrial DNA and we all have it regardless of our sex.
I don't believe Jesus inherited any DNA from his mother, or grew out of one of her fertilised eggs

I believe he was miraculously implanted as a zygote, by the Holy Spirit - that his physical form was essentially created, rather than conceived

Hence I don't believe Jesus's mitocondrial DNA came from Mary, although he must have had some
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I don't believe Jesus inherited any DNA from his mother, or grew out of one of her fertilised eggs

I believe he was miraculously implanted as a zygote, by the Holy Spirit - that his physical form was essentially created, rather than conceived

Hence I don't believe Jesus's mitocondrial DNA came from Mary, although he must have had some
Yes....that is a very good observation.:)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Christmas is approaching and this made me think about the virgin birth, in Christianity…

So according to scripture, Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit - who impregnated his mother, Mary

It did so without engaging in sexual intercourse, so although she was impregnated she remained a virgin

Some issues come to mind that perhaps we could debate and/or discuss:
  1. Can this be explained, or must it remain a mystery?
  2. Did Jesus exist before his mother was impregnated?
  3. How can a human egg be fertilised without sperm?
  4. Where did the 50% of Jesus’s DNA that was not from his mother come from, if no sperm were involved?
  5. If no sperm was involved wouldn’t that mean that Jesus wasn’t actually conceived?
What I think must have happened is that the Holy Spirit made a zygote materialise in Mary’s womb, which then attached itself to her and turned into the embryonic Jesus

I think the answer isn't as difficult as one may think.

Remember Adam and Eve? No mother, no father but created by God. Every time God spoke, something was created Gen 1.

We are talking about the Creator. When Mary said, "Be it unto me according to thy word" - the very word of God began to create a body (no sperm or egg needed even as not sperm or egg was needed for Adam and Eve).

Hebrews 10:5b ...but a body hast thou prepared me:

Then The Word (who we know in the flesh as Jesus) filled the body.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I did not know that

I suppose if you believe that a baby grows out of the father's contribution and that the mother contributes nothing "to the mix" then the miraculous conception of Jesus would have been much less problematic back in the early days of Christianity when people believed that - and that certain questions would never have occurred to them, as you said in your post

This also makes me think that the story of the Virgin Birth was not intended for modern audiences!

Although I don't see why it's not possible for God to implant zygotes into people as a means of making them pregnant!

If it was thought that Mary was just an incubator then there would be no link biologically to David as Jesus ancestor. Jesus was a real man, a real Jew, descendant of Adam.
This next scripture is symbolic of other things also but I see it as a clear reference to the seed of the woman, possibly a virgin, and that seed is Jesus. This of course is reading back into it what happened.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
If it was thought that Mary was just an incubator then there would be no link biologically to David as Jesus ancestor. Jesus was a real man, a real Jew, descendant of Adam.
Mary doesn't matter here as she's the woman. Jesus' link to David has to come from his father, according to Jewish understanding.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
So, we have two independent witnesses to the Virgin birth but which totally diverge about almost everything else concerning it. As such, I think they both heard about the tradition that had been passed down in respect of a virginal conception and birth, and then wrote their own frame stories based on the scant information.

I think this maybe where the 'confession' of faith maybe one thing, and the 'narrative' it is enclosed in, is another.
None other than Joseph Ratzinger has noted that "neither the New Testament nor the theology of the Church has fundamentally ever seen in this narrative or in the event recounted in it the ground for the real divinity of Jesus, hid "Divine Sonship." "According to the faith of the Church, the Divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father; the doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage."
"Introduction to Christianity"
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Mary doesn't matter here as she's the woman. Jesus' link to David has to come from his father, according to Jewish understanding.

Biblically speaking the one who crushes the serpent's head is the seed of the woman.
Biblically speaking the Messiah is a descendant of David, from Mary's side does not matter, and I think that would be in God's view also. Then again I have to say that because I'm a Christian and Mary is the only biological link to David.
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
Then The Word (who we know in the flesh as Jesus) filled the body.
I've never really understood "The Word" or "The Logos"

Is that basically what Jesus Christ was before he was born?

If so then what was his nature, as The Word - e.g. did he have a mind, a personality, a bodily form?
 
Top