Let’s take from the article of the New Scientist:
The geneticists first realised that FD was unusual when they looked at his white blood cells. Because FD is a boy, his cells should all have a Y chromosome, which contains the gene for “maleness”. But his cells contain two Xs, the chromosomal signature of a female. Occasionally, chromosomal females carry one X chromosome bearing a chunk of the Y chromosome which includes the maleness gene.
One could make the argument that Jesus didn’t have a Y chromosome but was still able to be male.
Also, the original Y chromosome had to come from somewhere (evolution according to evolutionists). According to your logic, neither of us should even exist.
Let’s look at an article from UChicagoMedicine:
"By fossil digging on the sex chromosomes, we were able to reconstruct the four events that drove sex chromosomes into their distinctive X and Y forms and to date when these events occurred during evolution," says Lahn. "The farther back in time we look, the more similar X and Y appear, boosting the theory that they arose from a pair of identical autosomes." … Sex was not always determined by DNA. In many reptiles, the temperature at which the eggs are incubated determines the sex of the offspring. But when warm-blooded mammals with internal reproduction arose, sex determination by temperature became problematic. Shortly after mammals branched off from reptiles, approximately 300 million years ago, a regular pair of autosomes began evolving into what would become the modern X and Y chromosomes. Many genes on the human Y chromosome have homologues (analogous genes) on the X chromosome. The presence of these X-Y genes reinforces the idea that the Y chromosome developed from an X-like ancestor.
We can see that both chromosomes came from a common ancestor. We also know that sex was not always deterimed by chromosomes either.
“It would be absurd for Pro to suggest that God is constrained only to the laws of biology known to us, designed by him. He can edit, tweak and bypass the general laws of biology as he pleases to achieve miracles.”
Yes, correct. I am merely defending the Virgin Birth against atheists who will use biology to “debunk” it while ignoring that biology makes no sense without God and that God is above biology. I do indeed believe the Virgin Birth was a miracle.
From a new article:
It is often assumed that women have XX chromosomes and men have XY, but biology is more complex.
Again, biology is not as simply as you want it to be.
They do not menstruate,
Perfect since Mary is said to be without this according to Catholic doctrine.
I’m still not comfortable with this idea. I believe the Virgin Birth was simply a miracle.
“The apostle Paul, who was chronologically the first author of the New Testament (his letters predate the gospels), was apparently unaware of the virgin birth or even of Mary’s name.”
I fail to see the problems with this. Luke was likely the one who got most of the Marian information directly from Mary.
Also, the Virgin Birth could be said to be implied in his writing too. He calls God the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” multiple times.
“Mark, which most scholars agree is the earliest of the gospels, makes no mention of Jesus’ birth and is apparently unaware or at the very least indifferent (not important enough to be included in his account) to the idea of a virgin birth.”
Again, it is true that Mark may not have known about this yet. Or maybe this just wasn’t the point of his gospel. After all, Mark likes to keep Jesus’ identity hidden in his gospel.
“There’s an interesting story in Mark 6:1-6, in which Jesus is called ‘son of Mary’ by the people of his hometown: ‘Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James…’ Gerd Lüdemann, along with several other scholars, argues that that the phrase ‘son of Mary’ is not a reference to Mary as sole parent of Jesus (as if they were aware of a virgin birth); instead, it was a ‘bitter insult,’ a rude reference to Jesus’s illegitimate birth (p. 54).”
Not sure what exact proof you have that this would mean this.
First up, there are other instances in Mark’s gospel where children are called sons of the mothers. The other Mary is called the “mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome.” It makes no sense to assume to it refers to illegitimacy. Of course, I do agree this passage should not be used to prove the Virgin Birth, but I have never heard anyone use this passage to try to prove it before.
Second, Jesus is called the son of Joseph in the other gospels as seen in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:22, John 1:45, John 6:42. Matthew 1:16 shows that Joseph is part of the legal family of Jesus.
Third, the most likely reason Jesus is called the son of Mary in this passage is because it is talking about who is with Jesus. The people ask “are not also his sisters here with us?” Joseph was likely dead by the time this happened.
Let’s get many quotes from the Wikipedia article:
Tabor's hypothesis is considered highly unlikely by mainstream scholars given that there is little other evidence to support Pantera's paternity outside of some texts. Some scholars and religious figures postulate Pantera was a Roman ancestor of Jesus but not his father.
Celsus' claim is only known from Origen's reply.
The "common legionary name" Panthera could have arisen from a satirical connection between the Greek words panthēr meaning 'panther, various spotted Felidae' and parthenos meaning 'virgin'.
Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans state that the Toledot Yeshu consists primarily of fictitious anti-Christian stories that attempt to discredit Christian claims about Jesus, and that it offers no value to historical research on Jesus. The Blackwell Companion to Jesus states that the Toledot Yeshu has no historical facts and was perhaps created as a tool for warding off conversions to Christianity.
This claim is considered “highly unlikely by mainstream scholars,” it is only known from Origen’s reply, it may simply be from word play as a joke, and it may have only been made to attempt at discrediting Christianity.
“The presence of other stories of virgin births of heroic figures in history.”
What is this supposed to prove? We know the resurrection was in no way influenced by paganism or myths:
“[T]here is no evidence that the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (the three earliest gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke) was directly influenced by pagan mythology in any significant way. Rather, it is widely agreed that the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels is deeply influenced by Jewish tradition.The earliest followers of Jesus were devout Jews who abhorred Paganism, and would have been unlikely to shape their accounts of their founder on pagan myths…most of the alleged parallels between Jesus and pagan deities only exist in the modern imagination, and there are no "accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead". - Grokipedia
It makes no sense to say things in the New Testament were influenced by paganism. Jesus’ disciples would have wanted to distance themselves from this as much as possible. Jesus was meant to fulfill the Old Testament, not paganism or heroic legends.
The “virgin” in Matthew is 1 is actually a “young woman” in Isaiah.
The Hebrew is not clear, but it is not definitively not a virgin. Also, the Greek Septuagint uses the word virgin, so this idea was already present before Jesus was born.
Another proof of the Virgin Birth could be in Genesis 3:15. The woman’s seed is mentioned when seed is usally meant to refer to the man.
“Matthew and Luke, the only Christian gospels which give us the virgin birth story, contain problematic details-both internally and in comparison to each other.”
How is problems in the birth narative supposed to show it’s fake? If they wanted to convince people of a lie, why would they make it confusing? The “problems” aren’t about the virginal aspect itself.
My point is that biology should not be used to “debunk” the Virgin Birth.
Con
#1
