Virgin birth may sound like the stuff of myths and miracles, but now it’s the stuff of science, too. In recent years, asexual reproduction, aka virgin birth, has been confirmed in a number of organisms. And we’re not just talking about bacteria budding off one another. Large animals, like pythons, sharks, and komodo dragons, have been reported to reproduce with no sex involved. In these animals, the process is known as parthenogenesis, in which the females produce eggs that can develop without fertilization.
Could parthenogenesis, or some other scientifically conceivable process, have been at work in the most famous virgin birth story around? Dr. Aarathi Prasad, who’s writing a book about reproduction sans men, The End of Sex, ponders the question of Mary’s virgin pregnancy in the The Guardian. She points out one major problem with Jesus’s lack of paternity: that Jesus was male, presumably with an X and a Y chromosome. Since human females have only X chromosomes, there would be no way for Jesus to acquire his Y from Mary. Unless…
After speaking with some geneticists, Prasad presents one “implausible possibility”:
…Mary may have had a condition called testicular feminisation. Women with this condition have an X and a Y chromosome like a man, but their X chromosome carries a mutation that makes their bodies insensitive to testosterone. This leads to their developing as a female.
Genetically male, and probably sporting ambiguous genitals, Mary would have been sterile. But had she become pregnant spontaneously, her child could have inherited an intact Y chromosome.
Jesus would also have needed a mutation that reversed the insensitivity to testosterone, inherited from his mother, to prevent him from also appearing female. Another slim possibility is that Mary was a genetic mosaic—the fusion of twins, one of which had a Y.
Lest you think all this is just fancy talk, consider that scientists have already managed to induce parthenogenesis in a mammal. Kaguya the mouse, named after a mythological Japanese princess, was born 2004 years after Jesus, and like him, she has no father. Kaguya was born after scientists tweaked one set of her mother’s egg genes to resemble sperm genes, thereby overcoming the problem of genomic imprinting.
Related Content:
DISCOVER: Mice Breed Without Fathers
Discoblog: Female Shark Gets Pregnant on Her Own, No Male Required
Discoblog: Religion: A Tool to Keep the Parasites Away?
Image: flickr / Scott Schram
January 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
… or the hebrew word “alma” was accidentaly … yeah right … mistranslated as “virgin” when it was supposed to be “young woman” …
January 10th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Occam’s razor. Simplest explanation is that Mary had an affair before she met Joseph
January 10th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
…or our creators (as per Zecharia Sitchin) could have used artificial insemination.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Why not (dare I say it) just believe in the word of the Lord’s apostles and prophets. I do. Quit trying to explain away his miracles and just believe.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
if other cults with semi-divine, virgin-born saviors had survived, i wonder if all this interest in the jesus story would still be going on…in the days of the early church, the church faters had to answer their opponents who themselves had several of them, and questioned what made this jesus guy so special! i say let’s worship kaguya the mouse…
March 20th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I believe on virgin birth. And jesus was a profit of God, and a human. This is the world of facts. miracle is nothing every thing has cause.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
First off you are not aware of the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the power that raised Christ from the dead. This is power like you have never known in you’re entire life.
God is a Spirit as some don’t know. God created the entire universe so now it’s not hard for Him to overshadow a young virgin so she could give birth to a sinless Savior whom most of you do not know at all.
If you choose not to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus then you are completely lost and i have prayed that you have an encounter with God my Father like you have never known. God will rock your boat in the night hours.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
This schism of science and church while intersting does not allow either to proceed to its fullest. On multiple occasions the church has gone more in depth or reconsidered some of its basic beliefs it evolves with science but against it. Why, if G-d created everything would he not want us to discover these breakthroughs that make us better as a species. If He made. Us in His image why then would he not want us to grow. An example you know the Earth is not flat. Years ago people were forced to recant. Science fills the needs of many people. A lot of them are good Catholics and Christians. I doubt you would be against interfurons and research to save your life if you had M.S. Considering all of this I think that you of faith should back the people in science instead of labeling them as monsters. We are meant to grow, to deny that we have and will continue is to not realize our true potential as a person or a species. These discoveries could make people believe because what we’ve read is a rare phenomenon being replicated in a lab that could explain how He made Jesus. It doesn’t have to destroy faith. Please think about it.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
[...] Content: Discoblog: The Science of Virgin Birth Discoblog: What Kind of Peer-Review Would Jesus Want? Discoblog: Man, Pronounced Dead, [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Jesus was a prophet of God and died a natural death after surviving crucifixion. Grow up people. Read more at http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/
October 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am
HUMAN PARTHENEOGENESIS, VIRGIN BIRTH, THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
It is said that Buddha’s mother concieved her son when in a state of blissful meditation under a banyan tree. Mary concieved Jesus in more or less the same way. It’s also been said that Leonardo Divinci, Joan of Ark, Moses, one of our Saint Catherines, Moses, (floating down a river in a basket?) Zoroster and scores more geniuses, visionaries and healers throughout history came about this way. If many of the lower species can and do concieve parthenogenetically I don’t think it’s too shocking to assume that humans can too. Based on this fact alone I can’t imagine why scientists arn’t more curious. A hundred years ago the famous biologist, Jacques Loeb realized that: “The Male is not necessary for reproduction. A simple physio-chemical agent in the female is enough to bring it about.” Though no mammals have been known to have given birth parthenogenetically, Jacques Loeb got monkey embryos to fertilize through various means like electrical fields and saline solutions etc.
In the early 70’s I read and wrote a review for a book about the Ojibiwa or Cippewa people. (Sorry, I can’t remember the title.) The author spent a decade re-searching oral stories from the Ojibiwa’s old traditional speakers that existed before the coming of the whiteman. One story was that wise-women of the tribe looked for certain young maidens that possessed grace, intelligence and compassion. Sometimes a canditate for concieving and giving birth this way wouldn’t show up for a generation or two. Nevertheless, these wise-women kept an eagle-eye open for her. When found, men were not allowed to court her.
When she reached the age of fertility, her first period, she was instructed to fast for several days and, if willing, was required to dance around a fire in a sacred womens lodge built far away from the village. This ceremony occured while she was ovulating. Ideally a state of bliss or ecstasy was reached during which, according to hidden wisewomen knowledge, it would be possible for her to concieve and give birth in the “old Way”. They also knew that a child born this way would be blessed with gifts of healing, clairvoyance or leadership. The Great Spirit would give to the child whatever tools the tribe might be in need of. I believe this is what happend among The Essenes along The Dead Sea over 2,000 years ago. Jesus was the result. It’s my guess that hey planned it. Also, I might venture to say that this “old way” of concieving and giving birth was considered a no-no during a time when patriarchy was firmly established. Was this why King Herod felt so threatened, enough to try and have all the new born males put to death in his kingdom?
It’s known that the law of parthenogenesis results in the birth of females only. Let’s assume, until we know absolutely, that this holds true for species other than human, for there is a visionary power us humans possess. The Sanskrit term for it is Kriyashakti or, in short, shakti; the mysterious power of thought which enables us to produce external, perceptable, phenomenal results by its own inherent energy. Any idea will manifest itself externally if one’s attention is deeply concentrated. If a woman invisions a boy it’s quite possible she will give birth to one. “In the Mother Cell begins all living things. The Creative Principle is feminine. The highest divine mystery is Brahamana, the feminine of Brahma.” —-(according to Hindu mythology)
If I haven’t scared the reader off by dipping into religious lore, one might ask the biological reason for the presense of the hyman in women. I believe only one species of whale has a hyman but it is to keep sea-water out. Among us humans the hyman remains a “medical mystery”. Some folks think it’s there merely as fodder for comedians. Is it there because Nature, the great conservative, has a higher form of conception and birth in mind for women? One might also inquire about dermoid cysts—-or certain types of them. Looking up dermoid cysts in Chambers Medical Dictionary, under Medio-logical Records, one finds; “dermoid cystic growths; embryonic growths or tumor-like formations found in women which are of congenital origin, containing evidence of being dejecta membra, or the remains of pregnant growths, in the embryonic fetal period of gestation, somewhat akin to the primary state of being with child.” Some of these dermoid cysts, sometimes mistaken by surgeons for tumors, but really are embryos, are similar in all respects to the products of female gestation, containing bones, hair, teeth, flesh, glands, portions of the scalp, face, eyes, ribs,—–in short, all the organs of the human body—-what else could they be but virgin embryos in the process of development? They’ve been known to appear in young girls from 8 to 16, that have their hymans intact. Unbeknownst to them, one of their eggs had parthenogenetically been fertilized and then had stopped developing and, typically getting trapped in their fallopian tube, had to be removed, as the failed embryo had become toxic. There is reason to believe that parthenogenesis was the primordial form of re-production for all life, while sexual generation (epigenesis) arose later as a result of inferior environmental and nutrutive conditons resulting in diminshed fertility. In other words, males develope in order to insure the survival of the species.
Anthopoid apes, our closest biological cousins, have a monthly period while in captivity and on a artificial diet. When returned to their natural habitat and diet they will bleed in the Spring and Fall like most mammals. Back in 1969 I used to live at Hipprocrates Health Institute, in Boston, where everyone drank wheatgrass juice, ate raw sprouts, fruits, nuts and vegetables and nothing else. That means, no bread, grains, meats, or dairy products. The root philosophy at Hippocrates is that “Life Comes Only From Life”. After a month or two on this living food diet some women would have their periods lessen in the amount of blood-loss; and the overall discomfort and cramps they usually experience practically vanished. One woman in particular, who I got to know as a sister, lost her period completely and enjoyed total health. I also met several women who experienced extented fasts of one month or more. They had no periods as well. It’s also quite common that many women athletes lose their periods. Non-menstruating women, providing they are on a (super)-natural diet, faithfully practicing yoga or getting lots of vigorous excercise, like women athletes, enjoy a superior, overall health with a robust vitality. They’re able to re-absorb vitamins, minerals and hormones otherwise lost during menstruation. I should say that women on a normal, civilized diet should have their period. This is natures way of cleaning house. We can’t all be raw-fooders. Frankly, most of us can’t even imagine wanting to be a super-natural-health-nut. I do not encourage going in this raw-food direction unless one truly studies the subject in depth with experienced teachers. A commitment to this lifestyle is taxing—-at least until one eliminates the accumulations of a toxic, civilized diet.
There are artistic depictions of Mary standing on the Crescent Moon. Did our ancestors know that women had to rise above the moon (menstruation) in order to immaculately conscieve? Indeed it seems obvious, from what we’ve observed thus far, that a clean, living food diet is nesessary for eliminating wasteful monthly menstruation and is the foundation for the process of parthenogenesis. Part of the condition required for a virgin birth is alkalinity. A proper raw-food diet alkalizes the blood.
It’s obvious that the human race is over-sexed. The earth has amassed way too many bodies that don’t know how to get along with each other and are straining the earths resources. This is old news. But sex is beautiful and deemed necessary by almost everyone I know. I’m the last person to say it is wrong or evil. Still, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Think of rape, disease, un-planned pregnancies, over-population and the endless battle of the sexes. Oh well, we must pay the fiddler for our modern lifestyles. I do.
In almost every culture on earth and in amost every major religion stories of The Virgin Birth abide. The following is an old Fijian legend: “There was a great chief in Tonga who had an exceedingly beautiful daughter. He hid her from the eyes of men, for he had never seen one worthy to be her husband. Down on the sea-beach he built a fence, thick, strong and high. Here she used to bathe after which it was her custom to lie down for a time upon the clean white sand within the fence, that she might rest a while, and that her body might dry. So it came to pass that the Sun looked down upon her, and saw her and loved her; and in the course of time a child was born to her, whose name she called Sun-child”.
It’s time we all chip in and take a close look at this simple, long-forgotten and possibly forbidden subject. Is it fact or fiction? Are all parthenogenetic children gifted? As far as I’ve learned a virgin birth doesn’t guarentee the child will possess super-human powers. They could be as normal as any other child. Most likely they will, at the very least, have spiritual gifts like humility and compassion and would not want anyone to know of their special conception. Would you?
I’m searching for re-searchers, fact-finders, fact-checkers, anyone in earnist to uncover more about human parthenogenesis. In my little pea-brain virgin birth is the jewel in the crown of creation. It’s the tip of an iceberg of hidden knowledge—–knowledge that might lead to God or Goddess knows what. Is it trully possible to prepare a woman for such a feat? Would any among us be courageous enough to attempt it? Will the return of parthenogenesis be the straw to break the back of patriarchy? I’m certainly not interested in raising women upon another unreachable pedastal. There’s nothing wrong with modern, meat-eating women. At least this shouldn’t stop them, and us men too, from being loving and responsable human beings. Every child is sacred and special no matter how they are born. I’m not trying to create a master race. And men are wonderfully filled with spark and creativity, piss and vinigar. They will not disappear. Yet we must eat some humble pie if we’re going to be open to these truths that art too important to be new. Speaking as a normal, red-blooded American guy, I can say that, once I opened Pandora’s Box and got freaked out by Medussa (women’s mysteries) my ego got beat up a little but it didn’t crumble and I think I’m better off for it. At least I don’t feel so left out of the loop of this ancient/modern knowledge. I sincerely believe that truth will set us free—-the more the merrier. That being said, as I approach 60 years of age, I still feel dumb. I’m not a trained scintist by any means and I never had the opportunity to attend college. I’ll end, for now, with a quote from proffessor Franceis Lester Ward: “Women are the race itself….the strong primary sex, and man the biological afterthought.” I’ve been contemplating this subject since 1969. It won’t go away. Mama mia, what are we gonna do?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:33 am
You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and coming from an unusual angle
http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26
and, similarly TheologyWeb:
Forum — General Theistics 101
Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=160
(Best to click on arrow on right which will take you to the last post. Posts by Antony and Ben Lomond relevant.)
October 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
In my opinion there are some good reasons to question the Christian position that Mary’s conception of Jesus was a divine action. For example, an article at http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/virgin-birth.html says:
“The virgin birth isn’t mentioned in the earliest Christian writings, such as the letters of Paul and the gospel of Mark. This has led some scholars to argue that the idea wasn’t part of the original beliefs about Jesus, but was introduced later.”
The fact that the virgin birth isn’t mentioned in the earliest accounts strongly suggests to me that the story was created later as part of an effort to make Christianity more competitive with pagan religions. The above cited article also says that stories about divine conceptions and virgin births were common in ancient times. These other stories could have given Christians the idea to create a similar story about Mary and Jesus. Anyway, That’s what I think.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Indeed there are very good reasons to question the church position on Jesus’ birth.
The birth of Jesus is mentioned in two of the four gospels, and nowhere else in the NT. One tells us Joseph was not the father, and the other — when properly translated — nominates Heli as the father.
The church claim is that Matthew’s gospel quoted a prophecy from the OT that predicted a virgin birth. However, that OT text speaks of a young woman, not a virgin.
As to the remainder of these gospel birth narratives, you should query whether the phrases there actually mean what we have been conditioned to believe.
For example, theologians tell us when Mary is told the “the Holy Spirit will come upon you”, this alludes to a virginal conception. However, there are numerous cases in the Bible of the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, coming “upon” someone, and it is only in Mary’s case that it is interpreted as referring to impregnation.
The two gospel birth narratives are analysed in considerable detail in several articles on my website. What these two accounts actually say is that Jesus was the son of a man other than the one his mother married.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
All I desire to say is that the latter letters of the Bible were written to encourage and correct, to admonish and chastize.Also the Old Testimate does speak of a virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel…” T. Crosthwaite, I would like to know where those articles obtained thier sources from. If you have any idea?
November 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Abby,
Re: your post November 4th
Almost all translation of Isaiah 7:14 were as you quoted until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Since then most new Bible translations say “the young woman shall conceive,” or “the young woman is pregnant,” or something similar.
With a little reading, you will discover the church claim is that Matthew did not actually quote what Isaiah spoke in Hebrew (which said, “young woman”) but a Greek mistranslation of Isaiah (which said, “virgin”) made about 500 years after Isaiah died.
Matthew saw in Jesus a second fulfilment of certain prophecies. For example he applies “Out of Egypt I called my son” to Jesus, even though he knew that in its original context it referred to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
Isaiah 7:14 is one of these prophecies which Matthew saw as having a second fulfilment in Jesus. So if Isaiah said “virgin,” then this would mean 2 virgin births, the first in Isaiah’s time circa 735BC, the second with the birth of Jesus in 4BC.
But the fact is Isaiah did not prophesy a virgin birth. There was no virgin birth prophecy.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Christians read doctrinal concepts of Holy Trinity, Incarnation, and Virgin Birth into the Bible narratives simply because their minds have been thoroughly conditioned in this vein by their theologians for the past 1800 years. They approach the Bible with specific conditioned connotations, preconceptions and mindsets of expecting to find their church doctrines there, so is it any wonder that they find exactly what they expected to find as they read their Bible???
Matthew’s Gospel, text 1:23 is a prime example of misunderstanding due to preconceptions and warped mindset. This text is one of the foundations upon which the spurious doctrine of virgin birth is built, and close analysis will show that Matthew’s meaning in this text does not fit the use which the “Christian” churches have made of it. As it stands, Mt 1:23 is based on a gross mistranslation of the prophet Isaiah from Hebrew into Greek (the LXX) made in ALEXANDRIA about 500 years AFTER Isaiah had died.
It is important to understand that Matthew sees the life of Jesus of Nazareth as a RECAPITULATION of the history of the nation of Israel. Matthew sees Jesus’ life as a composite of the values that have shaped Israel’s history – and “virgin birth” or “Jehovah God Incarnate” does NOT fit these values.
The real significance of Mt 1:23 is not found in the LXX mistranslation (circa 200 BC) of Isaiah’s words spoken 750BC. Through the birth of a child Jehovah God was once again visiting and supporting his people in the Immanuel principle.
This theme of God being with or visiting his people in the sense of giving them sustenance or support when they face difficult times or oppression wends its way through Hebrew Scripture. Such a time was in Isaiah’s days (750 BC) when the land of Judah was under attack by confederate forces of Ephraim and Syria. The prophet Isaiah had given King Ahaz a sign through a child appropriately named IMMANUEL (with us God) as a living chronometer for the king to mark off the years of oppression. Matthew used Isaiah’s sign of 750BC where God was with his people, as a RECAPITULATION of God again visiting his people, but this time in the teaching person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Certainly, Jesus of Nazareth personified the values of God, in that he lived these values and also expected all people to do likewise (that is the essence of his sermons). However, to personify or live God’s values is NOT to be God incarnate.
The doctrines of apotheosis (incarnation of the gods into human form) and virgin birth certainly do not embody Hebrew values. These are doctrines of revamped paganism unheard of by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:28 am
It is my contention that the Bible when read in the idiom in which it was written, IS NOT SAYING that Jesus of Nazareth was born of “virgin birth.”
What the disciples were saying was that Jesus of Nazareth had once again given mankind the potential to become godly (to be like him) by living an ethical life (like he did).
Where as the subtle difference as taught by the churches of Christendom is that God had become man.
Once the subtle difference is grasped, then biblical teachings become clearer.
Ask yourself the question, what is more reasonable and meaningful:
For mankind to become godly by living an ethical life, or
For God to become a man by “virgin birth???