DNA proves that Jesus was not Virgin-Born


The Virgin Birth:  How many Christians have really thought through this core Christian teaching?

Remember, in the Old Testament, Yahweh is always referred to as a spirit. The “angel of the Lord”, whoever that might be, took on human form at times, but the OT never once states that Yahweh has a body. So Yahweh, God the Father, the Father that Jesus often referred to as being his father, did not have a body. He did not have bones, muscles, blood…or DNA.

So the Gospels of Matthew and Luke tell us that Mary was a virgin and that Yahweh selected her to be the mother of his Son. Now, how exactly is a spirit going to procreate with a human to produce a son? Presumably, the authors of these stories believed that God the Father sat on his throne and simply spoke “thou shalt conceive my son, Mary of Nazareth”, and it was so. But if this is what happened, I find the choice of words used by the gospel writers to describe the moment of Jesus’ conception very, very odd: “and the spirit of the Lord overshadowed her…”. If God simply spoke the words…and it was so…why use this type of language? Did the gospel writers actually believe that Yahweh copulated with Mary as Zeus copulated with women?

We don’t know.

But however it happened, Jesus was conceived in the fallopian tubes or in the uterus of Mary by a spirit, Yahweh. Now here comes the complicated part: How could Jesus be fully human and not have the DNA of his father AND his mother?  Because…how can a bodiless spirit pass on DNA to a child?

“Well, God simply *poofed* some DNA into Mary’s body to give Jesus a full complement of DNA. But if that is what happened, then Jesus is not the Son of Yahweh, but the son of a *poofed* or invented collection of DNA—it did NOT come from his bodiless father because by definition, his bodiless father has no DNA.

So, either Jesus was NOT the Son of Yahweh, or, Jesus was not fully human—he only possessed the DNA of his mother.

And if your solution to this dilemma is the tried and true Christian retort: “It is a mystery.”  My response is: No…it is much, much more likely that this is a tall tale.

The claim of the Virgin Birth is just another silly supernatural tale.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “DNA proves that Jesus was not Virgin-Born

  1. One more point on the Virgin Birth.

    How did people in Antiquity envision the union of a god with a human to produce a child?

    Some say that the ancients believed that when a human male impregnated a human female, it was as if a gardener planted a seed in a field. The field did not participate in the formation of the young plant itself, it only provided the environment for the young plant's growth. I don't know if this is correct or not, but I am pretty certain that the ancients had no concept of chromosomes and DNA.

    So when the writers of (only two of) the gospels mention a virgin birth, you have to wonder how they envisioned this miracle. Did they envision simply that God's “seed” grew in a human vessel (Mary's uterus), and that Jesus then was born in the shell (flesh) of a human being, and simply because Jesus possessed the outer “shell” of a human being, this made him “fully human”??

    It would be fascinating to know what the writers were thinking when they invented…I mean…wrote, under divine inspiration, this amazing story…

    But maybe we are all making yet another assumption here. Maybe the Christians of the first century, or at least the authors of Matthew and Luke, did not see Jesus as “fully human” and “fully God”. Maybe this concept only developed later, or at least gained majority opinion, later. Maybe the authors of these two books saw Jesus as a demi-god, no different than Achilles and Hercules; a man-god who was the son of Yahweh and a human mother, Mary. And evidence for this being the case is this: Imagine a first century Jew believing that Yahweh himself had impregnated a human virgin to give birth to…himself! That Jesus' (Yahweh) spirit had impregnated Jesus' mother!

    My goodness!

    Christians claim that it is highly improbable that any first century Jew would move a buried body. Well, I can top that! I would say that it is even more improbable that any first century Jew would believe that God would impregnate a human virgin to give birth to himself! That is about as implausible an idea as it gets!

    Yet Christians buy this very implausible story…hook, line, and sinker!

    Like

  2. What is the personal insult that was hurled? And why waste time addressing the issue? You sure waste a lot of your time with this stuff. I never read the article…just read the comments and not half of those. Depends who writes them and how long they are. I wonder how you have time for all this Gary. Supposedly you are some kind of doctor and also have kids. And you have this blog. What a wasted life you live.

    Like

  3. I am involved in one of the greatest movements known to mankind: the debunking of religious superstitions and the liberation of the human mind from imaginary ghosts, ghouls, and gods.

    Like

  4. You evaded my question: What WAS that personal insult that was hurled at you? You tell others they don't answer the questions you ask but you don't answer questions either.

    Your 'greatest movement known to mankind' is the same belief of countries (or their leaders) that mass murder either their own population or other cultures they want eliminated (or should I use the word 'debunked'?).

    You are like a cop killer Gary. You think the 'good guys' are bad but if you were in trouble would you call someone like a Nazi, Thug, or Pol Pot murderer for help?

    Like

  5. What brainwashed nonsense.

    Your insult was to call me pathetic (a personal attack) instead of attacking my “pathetic” position (addressing the topic of the post).

    Like

  6. Well you ARE pathetic and so is your position. I'm not sure why you are whining about it. Of course since you are involved in, as you put it ” one of the greatest movements known to mankind” you must think you are really special. It is however pretty sad if debunking imaginary ghosts, ghouls, and gods is what you consider so great. You have very low standards.

    Like

  7. A world without imaginary gods, is a world where educated, young men do not fly airplanes into skyscrapers thinking that by doing so they are pleasing and obeying the will of one of these imaginary gods.

    Like

  8. I agree with the person saying your position is pathetic. Anyone who thinks “debunking” what they believe are myths and fairytales is the greatest movement has serious issues. You have raised yourself up to be the judge over most of the world population, Gary. Your arrogance is telling.

    Like

  9. When you're finally fall of the horse into the ditch of relativism and no longer worship truth as your god, Gary, what will you ever do?

    Like

  10. And both of you are brainwashed.

    People who are in a cult, such as yours, believe that everyone else is delusional. They cannot see the irrationality of their inerrant belief system no matter how much evidence is presented to them.

    You are wrong, friends. You are very, very wrong.

    There is no good evidence for anyone to believe in the reality of the supernatural. There is no good evidence that good ghosts and bad ghosts are at this moment battling for control of our brains (souls), as your belief system asserts.

    It is an ancient, silly, superstition/tall tale whose time has come to be debunked and abandoned.

    Like

  11. I don't “worship” anyone or anything. I follow the scientific method to discover truth. I suggest you do the same and abandon your ancient tall tales.

    Like

  12. Lol…

    Love it when they get angry.

    Hey morons reading this, please remember that when pharisees couldn't out talk jesus all they could do is gnash their teeth.

    Pretty similar to what I'm seeing now.

    Lol

    Like

  13. Maybe you should find a cause that counts. Debunking ghosts etc is a pretty useless cause. The Twin Towers has nothing to do with what you call your cause. The mass murders in atheist countries kill far more than the Twin Towers or killing of witches burned at the stake ever did, but you somehow don't and can't see that. You are trying so hard to convert people to your pathetic religion you cant see straight.

    Like

  14. I have yet to hear of an atheist who slaughters people in the name of and for the advancement of atheism. History books are full of mass slaughters performed in the name and for the advancement of Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus.

    Like

  15. Bull. Christianity is outlawed under atheistic regimes. The dictators did a great job of slaughtering, and sending to imprisonment, millions of their own people including rebellious writers and disobedient Priests. I guess you're one of those who have not studied history.

    Like

  16. The question is this: Did the atheistic dictator kill people for the sole reason to advance atheism or for other reasons.

    Christians and other theists have regularly slaughtered large numbers of people for the sole reason that they believed that it would please their invisible deity.

    Like

  17. Of course the dictator killed to advance atheism. Why kill and imprison Christians? To wipe it out! Like you, they tried to carpet bomb a religion but, also like you, eventually find out they couldn't kill the Spirit. You will never kill Christianity. It. Is. Not. Possible.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s