Virgin Can Give Natural Birth To A Human Son – Possibility Explored

[inhumility]

Jesus s/o Mary was born without a father. This fact has perplexed many a persons, with the result that some have even resorted to deifying him and believing that he was Son of God or God, just because of this usual but natural birth. In fact, as per their own belief, based on OT, Adam was also born not only without a father but even without a mother, if usual birth of Jesus makes him Son of God or God ,as they say mere in superstition and mythically , then they should deify Adam logically double-fold and also deify Eve double-fold . Now if we admit this logic there have become two sons of God and one daughter of God and if as they say that Jesus was a perfect man and perfect God, we shall have 3 Gods+ two Sons of God one Daughter of god; and that would be without having wife by God and all these human being would become perfect humans and also perfect God as the logic goes..
But this is all illogical, as in Old Testament Son of God etc is mentioned only metaphorically and symbolically meaning most loved by God having some authority from God as Adam was made by Him on his image i.e. like Him. Since Jesus followed Torah so he clearly spoke of the usage of OT, if and whenever he spoke these words.
Then the matter of born without a father does not end there, there are at least two other instances quoted by history in this regards which tell s that Changes Khan was also born of a Virgin and a Chinese Monarch who founded a dynasty was also born of a Virgin, these Virgins also had dreams more of less similar in nature to that of Mary, that they would give birth to sons without a father. But that is of folklore, from the source of history, and not based on scientific research or scientific study.
Here we mention a scientific study / research whereby the possibility of virgins giving births to sons is discussed, as mentioned by Mirza Tahir Ahmad.
So how was Christ born? We understand that research on the subject of single mother birth without the participation of a male is being carried out in many advanced countries of the world. But so far human knowledge is only at a stage where scientific research has not yet advanced to such a level where positive irrefutable evidence of virgin births in human beings can be produced. However, all sorts of possibilities remain open.
At lower orders of life two phenomena are scientifically well established: Parthenogenesis and Hermaphroditism. As such, the miraculous birth of Jesus, to Mary, can be understood to belong to some similar natural but very rare phenomenon, the peripheries of which are not yet fully fathomed by man.
Here follow brief descriptions of the phenomena of Parthenogenesis and Hermaphroditism.
Parthenogenesis
This is the asexual development of a female ovum into an individual, without the aid of a male agent. It is observed among many lower forms of life such as aphids and also fish. There is also evidence that parthenogenesis can be a successful strategy among lizards living under low and unpredictable rainfall conditions. In laboratory conditions, mice and rabbit embryos have been developed parthenogenetically to a stage equivalent to halfway through pregnancy, but have then been aborted. In recent study, human embryos could be activated occasionally by parthenogenesis using calcium ionophore as a catalyst. Such research raises the prospect that some early human pregnancy losses may have involved the parthenogenetic activation of the embryo.
Hermaphroditism
This term applies when organs of both sexes are present within a single female and the chromosomes show both male and female characters aligned side by side. Laboratory tests have revealed cases such as that of a hermaphrodite rabbit which, at one stage, served several females and sired more than 250 young of both sexes, while at another stage, became pregnant in isolation and gave birth to seven healthy young of both sexes. When autopsied, it showed two functional ovaries and two infertile testes while in a pregnant condition. Recent studies suggest that such a phenomenon is possible, rarely, among humans also.
Please don’t mix up with paradoxes, God could create whatever he pleases, but for that He needs no wife. Creations of every thing physical and spiritual in the Universe, God just created these things, simple as that, but of course without a partner or wife.

[I, Brian]

Well, as this is posted in the comparative section, it's worth pointing out that in the ancient world of Europe and the Near East, virgin births were ten-a-penny.

Authority of any kind often required a Holy mandate of sorts - so anybody in the ruling classes of Europe and nearby in Asia would claim descent from the gods via a union of an earthly virgin mother and a specific god.

The nobility of Ancient Greece could trace themselves to descent from the gods, and where there was none particularly evident, they would have to invent their own.

Two of the most famous here are Alexander, who rather than claim a line via his father to the gods (a political unwise decision), instead he claimed direct descent from the gods via his mother.

The other famous example is Julius Caesar, who, coming from a lesser house, rewrote his own family history so that he was directly descended from the goddess Venus.

I'm not sure how directly this was the case in Persia, but certainly Persian rulers were gods in their own right - not through supposed invention, but as direct descendents.

So when it comes to examine the claims of the Gospels, what we have is a very familiar theme - someone with no previous claim to authority must therefore be attributed it by some means.

What's really interesting from an historical point of view, is that the Gospels not only try to claim a direct descent from god - but on failing that, they also make a claim of earthly rulership via a geneaological relationship to King David.

The paradox here is that the Gospels attempt to give Jesus a direct lineage to god and also earthly rulers - but then again, their hand is forced, because to be a Messianic figure for the Jews, he cannot claim to be god directly, but instead needs a legal mandate via his hereditary to run in accordance with Jewish scriptires. It's not too surprising that in a Greaco-Roman culture, if his message is to be believed, the mandate from god is also required to give him authority to gentiles.

2c.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

What's really interesting from an historical point of view, is that the Gospels not only try to claim a direct descent from god - but on failing that, they also make a claim of earthly rulership via a geneaological relationship to King David.

2c.

respectfully, i dont think so. if you follow the order of events very strictly, of the NT & pay very close attention, you will see HOW Jesus can be both. my view is quite different from the traditional christian view on this, however it is possible to see it when one examines all that was written & pay close attention to the very distinct order of events that unravel through & very deep cavern from both the NT & the OT.
the scriptures are not written in order as you would suppose from one single human author.

i dont see where there is a direct descent from God listed in the scriptures the way you have it worded there. perhaps in written dogma that tries to explain such a thing, but you say it fails is actually correct from a certain POV.
the rulership that you speak of as coming from david-there was no earthly rulership from that. that righteous line from Abraham to Mary/Joseph, was only there in order to bring forth the man Christ Jesus.

your view of Son of God when applied to Jesus, appears to be coming from the traditional view of dogma, which is most likely why you see the scripture failing to explain & make it clear. in that sense, i would tend to agree with you.

i think you kind of got your 'seeds' mixed up

[I, Brian]

What I mean is the paradox of Jesus being held to be both Son of God (literally) - but if that isn't good enough, he's also a distant relative of King David.

[Bandit]

hey Brian
we both see it as a paradox & i feel that is the best light to see it in. much better than doctrine.

he came from the line of David & he refered to Mary as 'woman'. while Mary mothered him, do you see that she could not qualify as an absolute mother?

what do you mean by Son of God 'if that isn't good enough'?

according to the scriptures, at what point in the order of events are you seeing Jesus declared Son of God? In other words, where is the first place God refers to him as his son?

if you prefer not to talk about it too much, that is fine too.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by inhumility

Adam was also born not only without a father but even without a mother, if usual birth of Jesus makes him Son of God or God ,as they say mere in superstition and mythically , then they should deify Adam logically double-fold and also deify Eve double-fold . Now if we admit this logic there have become two sons of God and one daughter of God and if as they say that Jesus was a perfect man and perfect God, we shall have 3 Gods+ two Sons of God one Daughter of god; and that would be without having wife by God and all these human being would become perfect humans and also perfect God as the logic goes..

this part is not bad. i just dont see where the scripture declares Adam or Eve as being 'born' form anyone. they were made/created & in figure there is a parallel there with Jesus & the saints. unless you are omitting scriptures to draw your conclusion, there is more than one way, in figure & in type that someone can be son(s) of God.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Bandit

what do you mean by Son of God 'if that isn't good enough'?

What I mean is that for Christianity to go forward into cultures where authority is justified by some degree of divine status (ie, the Roman Empire in Europe and Persian to the right) - then for Jesus to have been of very distant royal descent I should imagine would be relatively meanginless to the gentiles. What the Roman gentiles would probably need is a divine mandate to justify Jesus's authority.

Hence if you wanted to persuade the gentiles of his authority, you would need to persuade them first that he's qualified to make such claims - ie by divine descent. Obviously, to persuade the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, the most important things are fulfillment of OT prophecies, ie, of the line of David.

Simply thoughts.

[Postmaster]

What's really interesting from an historical point of view, is that the Gospels not only try to claim a direct descent from god - but on failing that, they also make a claim of earthly rulership via a geneaological relationship to King David.

He probably did share a blood line to King David, more directly then you think Brian, let me tell you something the king at the time of Christ was King Harold, he was a puppet king for the Romans and he wasn't Jewish he was an Arab. That's one of the main reasons why the Jews opposed the Romans, only a Jewish blood king could rule the Jews. Now why the Romans had Jesus crucified and why Jesus kept saying he was king of the Jews can't be too much of a coincidence... Maybe he was claiming his birth right, maybe he was a royal.... Other clues hint to this. However what would civilisation be like without Jesus today? Do you believe we would have progressed to what we have today if it wasn't for Jesus? NO WAY. Jesus is Love, Jesus the Shepard, the light because he also carried one of the most sound theologies man has had.... It's 100% true. So yes he can claim both divinity and royalty.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Well, as this is posted in the comparative section, it's worth pointing out that in the ancient world of Europe and the Near East, virgin births were ten-a-penny.

Indeed. This idea was pefectly plausible to the pagans whom the Christians sought to convert to monotheism - in pagan thought, gods were both willing and able to impregnate mortal women (although mortal men were believed to be incapable of doing the same with a goddess.)

A father-son relationship between God and Jesus would have been a *convenient* way for Christians to explain to the pagan world what the NT means when it seem to refer to not one but three divinities. And, no doubt, this would have been one of the factors that led to curious Pagans filling the churches in the time of Constantine (and after the decriminalization of Christianity by the Edict of Milan); expressing Christianity in terms that the Pagans would understand.

The idea that God begat a son by causing a woman to conceive must have been a notion that their fellow monotheists (the Jews) found alien and offensive, though. According to Jewish theology, God simply did NOT sire children, whether mortal of divine.

[path_of_one]

As far as my Biblical scholarship has gone (which I admit is not as far as I'd like), the idea of a virgin birth was a combination of a mistranslation in the OT prophecy (the original word meaning "young woman" not "virgin") and does seem to be influenced by the various Pagan religions around at the time.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter to me at all whether or not Jesus was (or could have naturally been) born of a virgin. The terms of Jesus' birth are not what make Him divine.

I follow Jesus Christ and believe Him to be a manifestation of God because of His life and teachings, His perfection and grace, and my own experience of Him, not because He was reportedly born of a virgin. If it was somehow proven He was born in the normal way- from two human parents- it would make no difference to me. His spirit/soul was divine and from God, while His body/brain was human. The complete intermeshing of divinity and humanity, and therefore my Savior.

Doesn't make much sense to me why people think He needed to be born of a virgin to somehow prove His divinity, but I'm not one to go out and disprove it either. If someone believes it and it seems to help their faith, what difference does it make to me and my faith?