The Science of Virgin Birth

By Nina Bai | January 9, 2009 4:04 pm

jesusVirgin 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

  • marcomn

    … or the hebrew word “alma” was accidentaly … yeah right … mistranslated as “virgin” when it was supposed to be “young woman” …

    • Pch0002

      That still doesn’t explain Mary’s response in Luke 1:34

  • T. H. Roderick

    Occam’s razor. Simplest explanation is that Mary had an affair before she met Joseph

    • Pch0002

      Luke 1:34

  • Gary

    …or our creators (as per Zecharia Sitchin) could have used artificial insemination.

  • Phyllis Tipper

    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.

    • Rubymoon1416

      Just believing is ignorance. God wouldn’t want you to be an ignorant person. 

      • Rodney

        You may be correct, Rubymoon, so at least consider the evidence and the possibility. If God is even close to what nearly all mono-theistic religions say he is, then surely this would have been easy for him to accomplish. And so, while “just believing” may be ignorance, likewise is pure sketicism in absence of truly searching for the truth.

  • Terry Trumps

    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…

    • Rodney

      And, yet, that does make me wonder, why did they not survive and why did the Jesus account? I don’t profess to know everything, but as near as my research indicates the early church and church fathers did answer to opponents and naysayers. Among other things, what made him so special way the many, many miracles that both believers and non-believers of what they called “The Way” witnessed.

  • Masieha

    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.

  • http://none Carol

    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.

  • Eric Souza

    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.

    • jenalyn

      Here here!!

  • Pingback: New Footage to Reveal How Jesus Lizard “Runs” on Water | Discoblog | Discover Magazine()

  • jeevay

    Jesus was a prophet of God and died a natural death after surviving crucifixion. Grow up people. Read more at

    • Pch0002

      This is a theory that only came about over 600 years after Jesus died.  If this were true, then somebody would have brought it forward before then.

  • Den

    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?

    • Jonathan Canfield

      … Very excellent points and interpretations Den. After pursuing American business for 13-years, I managed to close-up shops and earn a BA in Business and the Biological Sciences in late 2010.

      Going to college later in life, I had many practical questions to address: Creation v. Evolution, origins of written and artistic expressions, DNA as associated to gene pool diversity, mechanics v. organics, Social, psychological and emotional perceptions in humans, collective v. individual duty, physical and intellectual ideals, and male v. female psychosocial advancement/progress.
      The bottom line with the “virgin birth” is, it had to have happened in the farthest reaches of our beginnings. Women were here first. However, a virgin birth leading to male Homo Sapien is not a matter of if, but when. 

      These clear miraculous scientific events took place not only in the origins of humans, but in the advancement of our species. There was a sudden precise-point threshold from whence a very basic human creature entered history in a very advanced way, intelligent forces coupled with a complex ability to plan their active future topped all other mammalian potentials theretofore. This was in Ur or proximal to Ur. DNA mapping tethered to modern Geographic Paleontology tells the full story. Monotheism was not too far over the horizon for these folks. 

      Although many humans are not in sync with their coupled violent capacities, after the males of our species first appeared (S.E.Africa), a complex diet of proteins (from animals that suffered a violent death from these guys) advanced human myelination production, and better intellectual equipment production was then DNA coded (white & grey matter).

      If you really want to get into mysterious origins of human biology and physiology, the blue eyes becomes a pretty complex issue, due to all humans being from light-skinned Africans, in origin. Inasmuch, Mendel’s genetic models of dominant, non-recessive gene theory is put to task. Maybe those LasCaux cave painters from 27,000 BC had a lot more to say than: “this is what I used to kill and eat” (hear me roar). 

      I think when they were stuck in those caves due to a catastrophic external environment-atmosphere, those many years in close proximity with women resulted in events that would make scenes from the movie ‘Alive’ seem like a side item option de jour. Based on the art, these people were very intelligent and aware of their pinnacle status. 

      Something to ponder: if the diet altered evolutionary physiological DNA coding through these diverse and complex animal proteins, how much more do you think the DNA became altered (think European Bovine here) through non-diverse cannibalism? Wherefore, it may become obvious, the true origins of insanity, those lovely blue eyes, fear, and action stagnation, began by being stuck in THE CAVE…    

      • Jonathan Canfield

        The above interpretation of the actual/physical historic Record is not intended to reduce the Omnipotence of our Creator or the Logos of Jesus. The information is intended to point towards a complex history of advancement leading to fully aware, fully accountable, fully free-willed, human beings that have one, foremost-significant choice to make in life.

        For the first time ever, everyone who looks can access a majority of the supporting information regarding the history of the World. Inasmuch, comprehending what every author of the Bible intended. However, those writers made full use of: genetic history, analogy, symbolism, poetry, Doctrine/Law, and Divinity combined with geographic & historic facts. The Bible covers it in many ways. 

        Regardless, if we are unable to comprehend an actual/physical record that is also very evident; how in the World could anyone ever advance onto understanding non-physical, Divine expectations? We will never see those things alive. 

        It is not “…oh he of little faith…” anymore. And, we can’t just pretend that the Creator has not done plenty enough already to instill adequate enough faith–Including a Virgin Birth–impossible by anyone alone. 

        Knowing this current and available record, modern humans have surely advanced onto understanding the most complex and invisible expectations of all- the Trinity, Ascension, love/compassion, neighborly conduct, Good Will, Faith, and finally Heaven.

        Pretending that it is all just a magical mystery at this point in time… well, that is probably an unwise choice that most of us will have to decide for ourselves, one way or the other.  

    • Anelle

      I would be open to conceive in this way, it is what I really want.

    • Deloren

      Dude … in no proper Buddhist scriptures was Buddha ever conceived from Virgin birth,,,,,, Stop making up storeies to build your cult ….. Trust me its easier if you claim you are the second coming or another ‘god’ chosen prophet

  • T Crosthwaite

    You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and coming from an unusual angle

    and, similarly TheologyWeb:

    Forum — General Theistics 101
    Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

    (Best to click on arrow on right which will take you to the last post. Posts by Antony and Ben Lomond relevant.)

  • Bob Wilson

    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 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.

    • Pch0002

      The problem with this is that Luke was written early also.  The physician Luke was the author of Luke and Acts, as you see when you read the opening verses of each book.  But Acts ends without mentioning Paul’s death, which was not long after some of his letters, since many scholars believe he wrote some from prison.  If Paul had already died, then surely Luke would have written about it in Acts, as the majority of the book of Acts is devoted to Paul’s missionary journies.  Given that Luke did not write about that in Acts, we must assume that Acts was completed before Paul’s death in the 60’s.  Acts is clearly the second of the two books, as you see when you read the opening verses, so the book of Luke would have had to have been written even before then.  That’s pretty early.

  • T Crosthwaite

    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.

  • Abby

    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?

  • T Crosthwaite


    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.

  • Les Kelly

    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.

  • Les Kelly

    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???

  • Scott Mabee

    1 Corinthians 1:17-19 (The Message)

    17God didn’t send me out to collect a following for myself, but to preach the Message of what he has done, collecting a following for him. And he didn’t send me to do it with a lot of fancy rhetoric of my own, lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words.

    18-21The Message that points to Christ on the Cross seems like sheer silliness to those hellbent on destruction, but for those on the way of salvation it makes perfect sense. This is the way God works, and most powerfully as it turns out. It’s written,

    I’ll turn conventional wisdom on its head,
    I’ll expose so-called experts as crackpots.
    So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly intelligent in this day and age? Hasn’t God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense? Since the world in all its fancy wisdom never had a clue when it came to knowing God, God in his wisdom took delight in using what the world considered dumb—preaching, of all things!—to bring those who trust him into the way of salvation.
    Gods Word (the Message)
    Enough said!

    • Jenalyn

      I don’t think the ‘dumb’ the scripture is referring to is the preaching(was this part your interpretation?). I think that it was referring again to simple things like: just trusting without knowing for sure. -the world finds that dumb. They ‘preached’ in the temples too, didn’t they? My bible is a New International Version(not saying this is better) the same verse in mine says: “For in the wisdom of God the world through it’s wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of WHAT was preached to save those who believe.”

  • ed davis

    Hi there.

    Plenty of women who don’t like men are having babies these days. Technically, they are virgins and they are giving birth. If human beings can do that now, why couldn’t God do it then?

  • ed davis

    Terry Trumps,

    Please list these “other cults with semi-divine, virgin-born saviors”. Did you pluck this little lie from Zeitgeist, the movie?

  • Rev Kev

    WOW! sounds like all the “theologians above read everything but the Bible. The dead sea scrolls do not counter anything written in later scrolls or scripts. you all need to read what you are talking about instead of reading the internet and taking it as “gospel”

    Rev Kev

  • iamhere

    Actually there is a second possibility. I was just looking into this topic and Jesus could have had a natural sex reversal. A natural process that happens. Here is the article link.

    Since we understand so little about this process in animals much less humans, we would have to see in nature if any of these creatures turn out male and then figure out why.

  • maya

    Uniparental inheritance of imprinted genes can also result in phenotypical anomalies. Few imprinted genes have been identified, however uniparental inheritance of an imprinted gene can result in the loss of gene function which can lead to delayed development, mental retardation, or other medical problems.
    The most well-known conditions include Prader-Willi syndrome and Angelman syndrome. Both of these disorders can be caused by UPD or other errors in imprinting involving genes on the long arm of chromosome 15.
    Other conditions, such as Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, are associated with abnormalities of imprinted genes on the short arm of chromosome 11.
    Chromosome 14 is also known to cause particular symptoms such as skeletal abnormalities, mental retardation and joint contractures among others.
    Occasionally, all chromosomes will be inherited from one parent, due to either a sperm fertilizing an empty egg and duplicating itself, or a diploid egg that is not fertilized. The effect is similar to triploidy, with either a molar pregnancy with no embryo if only paternal genes are present, or an embryo with no placenta if only maternal genes are present. Neither condition ever results in a liveborn infant.


    Some claim Pathogenesis, but we know that that is also improbable, because such occurs naturally in some species, and has been artificially induced even in mammals, but generally produces only female offspring. In fact, scientists believe that not even the most advanced techniques could induce parthenogenesis in humans, especially for producing male offspring.

  • http://none ken hood

    T. Crossthwaite , following his mate TedWixted, claims ‘Jesus’ was fathered by one Heli , not by the Holy Ghost . This makes Him a bastard however you slice it , and Divine Law excludes a bastard from temple worship soHe certainly could never have been the Messiah . Deuteronomy 23 : 2

  • stock

    KH, the hebrew word translated ‘bastard’ Deut 23;2 , is ‘mamzer’ According to authorities in the language – Jewish Encyclopedia – Gesinius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon- Rabbi Noson Weisz and others, the word mamzer does not mean ‘bastard’ in the sense of being an illegitimate offspring. The meaning under Jewish law is made obvious by the above authorities

  • Justin

    Stop trying to denounce the miracle of the Virgin Birth. Yes there have been other’s born of virgins but Jesus did a lot more than be born of a virgin, he did miracles, brought morality back, died for our sins on the cross and rise on the 3rd day.
    God can do anything, he made the universe, so I think making a virgin give birth to him in flesh, is possible.
    Stock and ken hood on the bottom. Jesus was not a bastard, a bastard is when you don’t know who your father is. Jesus was his own father, Jospeth was his earthly father. So Jesus could visit the temple because he knew he was the Son of God and he knew his earthly father aka Jospeth, so Jesus is the Messiah.

  • Phil

    Have any of these other characters Jesus and Mary’s story is compared to appeared to their followers? I don’t think so. Even Atheist reporters witnessed the miracle of the sun at Fatima and checked to see if people far away saw anything unusual, as they could not have been affected by suggestion. They saw the lights, too. The Virgin Mary was the one who said something would happen on that date, there, but did not say what. I don’t remember if Joseph could’ve been married before, but Mary had a sister (though maybe that means “cousin) and a cousin. If Jesus had brothers, as we call brothers, his mother would’ve been left to the eldest after his death, or it would’ve been a big insult to the family.
    Also, the other faiths have their demigods as half-human/half man and that’s it, but Christianity has him as a divine being with a human and a divine nature. He is still connected to the other persons of the Godhead, though the others were totally separate from the god that contributed to their being, but he walked in a human body with a human soul. Thus, Christ was not a demigod; he still was and is God, as a person of. I’m no theologian, but that should be good enough. Claims about Jesus and Mary are no literary device. Hagiographies do not have their heros being abused so much, after being abandoned by most his followers and betrayed by one and then ripped to shreds before dying like a criminal.

  • T Crosthwaite

    Regarding the Biblical pepspective on the presence of God and the involvement of God in the births of mortal men, Ken Hood and Justin should find the following articles informative:

    1. Isaiah’s prophecy (specifically part 2.3, God’s presence as perceived in the Bible), and

    2. Luke’s Account of the Birth of Jesus (specifically, Gabriel’s response to Mary’s question).

    Both these articles can be found on the wallsofjericho website:

  • Chris

    She was abducted by aliens and artificially inseminated. Occam’s razor.

  • Patrick

    I’m comfortable with the virgin birth. The concept is not unique in judaica.

    Further, suppositions about the hebrew root word are meaningless without input from those who understood it’s original meaning. The translators of the Septuagint translated Almah not as “young woman” but “virgin”. This is spelled out quite clearly by a number of scholars.

    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.”

    Now if you substitute “young woman” for “virgin” what sign is that. God makes such an astounding sign as having a young woman conceive and bear a Son. Wow! When has that ever happened?
    If you, however, maintain the original translation by the Septuagint as “virgin”, the sign becomes clearly a miracle.

    To say it was an invention of Hellinized early christians trying to compete with pagan religions, look again. Not only were the Jews of the time expecting and hoping for a messiah, they knew what signs to look for and where. They weren’t expecting a messiah to save them from their sins, but to save them from their perceived oppression by the Romans and the Tetrarchs.

    Again, scholarly dishonesty shows it’s ugly face. Stop trying to “invent” history.

  • Dr. Edward Cumella

    I have written a book explaining scientifically the virgin birth of Christ. Until recently, we could not imagine or explain this phenomenon, but the mystery is finally resolving. Take a peek:

  • Sue Vickers

    You got very interesting debate started on your website and its worth a lot of comments. Very few people are able to talk so well about this issue. A big thumbs up from me.

  • Eric

    Occam’s razor is outdated and rejected by scholarship now. Sorry!

  • Sarah

    This does not explain how Mary had several children (through conception) afterwards. The likelihood of them all being born to a sterile mother miraculously does not seem very plausible.

  • baronvoncarson

    Or Mary and Jesus didn’t actually exist and were created as part of a cult/religion that was starting at that time? And if they did exist, they just spiced the story up a little bit to make them sound much more spectacular than they were. The only real evidence we have for both Jesus and Mary existing is in the bible.

  • Anonymous

    One more thing. Please read Den’s comment below. He is more right than you may realize.
    And also, please keep in mind that males cannot become absolete, because without the male, the human species would never diversify.
    Virgin female reproduction only creates exact female copies. Virgin, interdimensional conception (i.e…spirit sex between a man and a woman…always creates a male, but with the genetic—and—spirit code of both parents.) The reason why virgin children are super advanced is because they are more astrally aware, and hence able to perform healings, know the future, etc…  

  • Anonymous

    So you’re saying we’re immature if we don’t agree with the Islam faith?

  • Cherie

    Or Mary could be like my mom, who was innocently kissing her boy friend, when he had an accident on her leg, and few months later she is pregnant.

  • Pingback: car accident statistics()

  • Pingback: reebok zig pulse()

  • Pingback: walnut strip()

  • Pingback: JB Kind Doors()

  • Pingback: Vertical Blinds()

  • Bulla-aurea

    Trying to establish faith through science is a great mistake. Somethings either you accept them or reject them. I can accept someone accepting Christianity on the basis of a true Jesus or reject it on the basis of a legandary Jesus. I cannot understand however all this attempt to rationalize religion. Its like squaring the circle which is impossible as pi is an irrational number and the square’s sides are accurately defined…simply doesn t make any sense at all..

  • Pingback: WoW Gold()

  • Pingback: b2b data lists()

  • Pingback: business()

  • Pingback: Marketing()

  • Revlizabeth

    Is it really possible to explain the act of God?  Why don’t we just trust God, believe and receive the blessings that God gives unto us.

    Dr. Hodge

    • Stephenvanderweele

      There are many skeptics out there who start off by assuming Jesus isn’t from God and try to fit it into there mold, why not compare apples to apples and get rid of the pre-sumptous, selffish idea of agnostism.

    • Jquigly

      I agree with Einstein, “God does not play dice with universe.” So if God wanted to cause an epiphany (which is what Jesus was), he does not need to put his finger on the scales. By that I mean, he does not need to use supernatural tricks. If you believe that God created the universe, then he “runs the game.” It is not necessary for him to bend any rules of physics or nature. Ponder that.

  • Holyshit

    Don’t equal the incarnate of the HOLY SPIRIT(Jesus) to a reptile or to a mouse. As many people believe he comes in the form of a human. Forget your imagination for a instant, don’t mix science with religious beliefs. As you argue the Jesus is a mutation, Why it never happened after that, so far billions of people lived and died but no record exist for such an incident. In contrast if you say that virgin birth is natural(mutation is natural phenomenon it is not divine) why no one else was mutated after that? Pls don’t blend science and Christianity togather you will end up with a poison!

  • Hilreal

    Was Jesus haploid or diploid?  IF this is true, then why are drone bees males (bees produced without fertiliazation)?

  • Ju No

    Some people make a living, and even get rich challenging Christianity,
    and the miserable self-loathing  liberals fall for it.

  • Jos

    Who checked the virginity?

  • BP

    Notice that this article highlights that ONLY reptiles and fish have shown any evidence of a “virgin birth” naturally, not humans. The irony is that science is what has allowed this to happen to a mouse – not God, not Mary, not Jesus, but MAN. Its amazing the potential that humans have, and that science is utilising this potential. Its just a shame that religion has to hinder this development. 

    A virgin birth to humans has the ability to unnaturally happen now with IVF, a program that has been developed by SCIENCE. How can people so blindly believe in a deity that has no evidence of ever happening, that was written in a time where people were generally uneducated and by people that had never actually met or had any association with Jesus and has been translated many times in to many languages loosing all meaning anyway. 

    Why do people use “faith” as an excuse to believe? Has your faith stopped war, famine or disease? NO!

    To have faith is to be weak. If you cannot handle this world without thinking there was a divine being to map your destiny and to provide you moral, you are a sad and sorry individual. Make your own choices, research your own evidence, learn, grow and evolve as nature allows us. 

    It is time to disregard religion. There is nothing beneficial in it that the law or science cannot teach us. Its time to move forward as human beings and leave this outdated and obsolete disease behind.

    • Jquigly

      The religion vs. science is a false debate. As a matter of fact, science has been increasingly dominant since the enlightenment. It began rising in the seventeenth century and became fully entrenched in the eighteenth century. So the argument of “and look at the state of the world..” actually backfires. Religion and religious belief have been along for the ride as we entered the machine, science, and now information ages. I refrain from offering my theories about what is really wrong. I will just note that one scientist’s quotations are littered with references to God (Albert Einstein). He did pretty well despite this handicap.

  • pb

    This proves even more in the implausibility of ‘Virgin Birth’ . Face it, Joseph mated with Mary, and it was her first, so she was a virgin…. nothing immaculate, just simply being Human!

  • Shelby Harris

    You guys drive me nuts. Sex happens. Holy shit.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


Quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe.

See More

Collapse bottom bar