Who is the father of Jesus, if he is not the son of God or Joseph ?

[jude3]

He did not reproduce to our knowledge though which would be one detail that might be contradictory to absence of the Y chromosome which is necessary for typical human reproduction (not so in bees and ants though who are haploids). It is somewhat disrespectful of the prophet to suggest a possiblity however it is known that some children are born without having any Y chromosomes or who have a variety of mutations of the typical XY/XX human sex gene.

Hannahh, we DID know that he didn't reproduce...as he was not married, and was returned to heaven after his death/resurrection.

It is important to know though that we don't get to know EVERYTHING and indeed some of us don't care to know ANYTHING anyway and even if you prove to them SOMETHING they reject it anyway.

Agreed. In the gospel of John, it says that these things were written so that we may KNOW and BELIEVE. In other words, we have enough information to make decisions. For the skeptic, it's really about human pride. It's not a quesiton of evidence, it's a question of them not WANTING to be a God.

[StopS]

The question is unanswerable because DNA methodology did not exist during his presence here on earth. When he returns, you might ask again but for now no one can answer this question for you.

Ooops. People 2000 years ago lived without DNA?

It's a theoretical question. If I ask: does a car with an automatic gearbox have a clutch pedal? you don't really need to go to a car and physically check.

He did not reproduce to our knowledge though which would be one detail that might be contradictory to absence of the Y chromosome which is necessary for typical human reproduction (not so in bees and ants though who are haploids). It is somewhat disrespectful of the prophet to suggest a possiblity however it is known that some children are born without having any Y chromosomes or who have a variety of mutations of the typical XY/XX human sex gene.

The y-chromosome is necessary? Where? The default body is female and manages quite well without the y-chromosome, thank you very much.
Bees are what? What about queens and the female worker bees?

It is important to know though that we don't get to know EVERYTHING and indeed some of us don't care to know ANYTHING anyway and even if you prove to them SOMETHING they reject it anyway.

And you are one of those no doubt so why should we bother explaining? (an answer is requested here)

You are not making much sense. If someone proves something to me, why should I reject this? If I would reject everything, why would I ask?

Voicing doubt changed the perception of a flat Earth to a spherical one. If I don't ask I don't learn.

[StopS]

When I said I know..I mean I know it was God's Holy Spirit that caused the conception.

Really? How do you know that?

DNA is information...so a powerful deity can quite easily provide the into a female egg in order for the egg to be fertilised.

Can you explain what "necessary information" was provided? God's DNA? A special mix for his son? Did God provide his own DNA haploid to create his son?

But your tone indicate you're not genuine about the subject...but a stirrer....so you don't really deserve to be answered. A serious inquirer may want to understand the nature of Jesus vs the Father. I could help there.

Ah, the questions become uncomfortable so now it's my tone. Of course the notion of a god having a son and a ghost and they are all together one while the son is sitting on the right hand side of an omnipresent being is a bit difficult to take serious at face value. So if you believe all this you should not be surprised that in 2012 a human will question this.

These questions can be reasonably understood when you understand the scriptures in totality. They are an integrated message system....providing an answer to the redemptive plan of God for the sin of mankind. Jesus is the key.

No, sorry, there is nothing reasonable in this. If a creator of the Universe and of all living things singles out one species out of millions and then tells this one single species: "you are bad, but I have the solution: I'll kill my son and you will feel better" sorry, this is not conducive to reason or rational thinking in 2012. I can understand why people find Islam much more straightforward and compelling.

Sorry, I probably used the wrong word, angry. But you are irritated...so I was right in what I thought of you.

Not really. I am frustrated that people can't explain their belief and yet expect me to also believe what they can't explain to me.

So, the years of investigative work Collins did to determine not only Christ exsted but was resurrected was unscientific, not methodical, etc...? Remember, he did all of this BEFORE becoming a believer. He was known the world over as one of the most diligent and methodical scientists ever. I think it's interesting you are so quick to dismiss him. You'd have a modicome of creditbility if you could demonstrate the extent of your study into the subject vs just making opinions and assertions.

What does any of this have to do with the price of eggs?

Anyway - I think this conversation is pretty close to an end.

Out of curisity - can you tell me a little about yourself.

Yep. I asked a question, you can't answer it except by miracle.

Why are you on an Islamic forum?

I am here to learn how Muslims handle their religion and its demands in modern, everyday life. Sorry, I prefer to keep the rest confidential.

[Shafique]

Sorry to jump in late.

How about this for a theory/possibility?:

God had a plan for Mary. Her parents prayed to God for a blessed child, and one that they would devote to God. In Jewish culture, as I understand, it is only males who can be dedicated to the service of God. God did hear their prayers and informed them that the child would be so blessed. They were surprised that a girl was born, but God reassured them that she was special.

When the time came, Mary gave birth without the intervention of a male partner.

This is a miracle.

Now, what a theory may be is that Mary was born with the facility to have a child without the agency of a man. She naturally could carry a child via a process of parthenogenesis - or some other name - where she actually had within her the ability to produce and fertilise an egg, and form an embryo.

God had this as His plan, and she was born with this facility. Rare, and in this case it is a miracle - but one within the realms of scientific possibility.

It was therefore a virgin birth, of a man with manly characteristics - all man and in no part God. (God doesn't have DNA as He is not made of matter)

Does this tackle the thorny issue in the OP? Any flaws to the theory (other than it would be so rare an occurence it could be termed a 'miracle'?)

Cheers,
Shafique

[StopS]

Sorry to jump in late.

If a god has a plan, will someone praying change that plan?

To give birth, an embryo must develop from gametes. Each containing 50% of the DNA. %0% is Mary's DNA. What are the other 50%? God's? Gabriel's?

All your models still lack the DNA. And the y-chromosome, without which you will get a female, but not a male.

How is a miracle "within the realms of scientific possibility"? What? Excuse me?

If a god has no DNA, how can Jesus be the son of a god? You need DNA which is compatible with human DNA to breed.

"of a man with manly characteristics" do you get a "female with manly characteristics" or a "man with female characteristics"?

A miracle claim is a declaration of bankruptcy. It is the admittance that you have no rational or factually correct explanation.

[jude3]

Can you explain what "necessary information" was provided? God's DNA? A special mix for his son? Did God provide his own DNA haploid to create his son?

To your satisfaction, I probably cannot explain it. It must have been the right information for conception to occur. I guess you're in the same boat trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

Ah, the questions become uncomfortable so now it's my tone. Of course the notion of a god having a son and a ghost and they are all together one while the son is sitting on the right hand side of an omnipresent being is a bit difficult to take serious at face value. So if you believe all this you should not be surprised that in 2012 a human will question this.

No problem with inquiry...but if it's cynical and tone riddled, then that denotes someone has made their mind up...and the inquiry is closed, not open.

No, sorry, there is nothing reasonable in this. If a creator of the Universe and of all living things singles out one species out of millions and then tells this one single species: "you are bad, but I have the solution: I'll kill my son and you will feel better" sorry, this is not conducive to reason or rational thinking in 2012. I can understand why people find Islam much more straightforward and compelling.

You're welcome to Islam or any other 'works based' faith. I love Jesus because of what he did for me.

Not really. I am frustrated that people can't explain their belief and yet expect me to also believe what they can't explain to me.

Sorry, I used the wrong word again, irritated...I meant frustrated...so I was right in what I thought of you.

What does any of this have to do with the price of eggs?

Nothing to do with the price of eggs (though the use of the word egg is quite interesting given we are talking about X and Y's.) I introduced Collins because he is a genetic scientist of the highest order. It is important that we know that people like him reason this subject about Jesus, his life, claims resurrection etc. He did the hard work in investigating it. You are not...you are just here rambling and expressing your irritation to everyone.

Yep. I asked a question, you can't answer it except by miracle.

Correct...but one backed by the integrity of scripture and it's capacity to write history in advance.

I am here to learn how Muslims handle their religion and its demands in modern, everyday life. Sorry, I prefer to keep the rest confidential.

That doesn't sound quite right. I think you're here to fight and argue. Do you visit mosques etc to talk to Imans to find out how they handle their religion in modern life? Probably not. Forums are easy for intellectual fighters.

On your private data, I suspect: male, aged early 20's, single, profession of engineer/IT or studying for. Part time employed.

Kind regards

[jude3]

Sorry to jump in late.

How about this for a theory/possibility?:

God had a plan for Mary. Her parents prayed to God for a blessed child, and one that they would devote to God. In Jewish culture, as I understand, it is only males who can be dedicated to the service of God. God did hear their prayers and informed them that the child would be so blessed. They were surprised that a girl was born, but God reassured them that she was special.

When the time came, Mary gave birth without the intervention of a male partner.

This is a miracle.

Now, what a theory may be is that Mary was born with the facility to have a child without the agency of a man. She naturally could carry a child via a process of parthenogenesis - or some other name - where she actually had within her the ability to produce and fertilise an egg, and form an embryo.

God had this as His plan, and she was born with this facility. Rare, and in this case it is a miracle - but one within the realms of scientific possibility.

It was therefore a virgin birth, of a man with manly characteristics - all man and in no part God. (God doesn't have DNA as He is not made of matter)

Does this tackle the thorny issue in the OP? Any flaws to the theory (other than it would be so rare an occurence it could be termed a 'miracle'?)

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, it doesn't work. You are forgetting a few things.

Jesus was sinless. So if Mary (only) caused the birth, then the sin nature would be transferred to Jesus. It was only because the Holy Spirit caused the conception that he was sinless.

Jesus' own claims about his Father...and that he was from God.

[Shafique]

jude3 - on Original Sin, as a Muslim I don't subscribe to this idea and consider it to be something that wasn't part of Jesus' message, and is a concept only introduced into Christian Canon a few centuries after Jesus' ministry. That said, God in giving Mary the capacity to bear children without the agency of a man could also have made her also sinless. Would you agree that God could have done this?

StopS - God's plan, in my theory, would include knowing that Mary's parents would be pious and would pray for a child they could devote. He answered their prayer by giving them a child that was special biologically and spiritually.

The DNA part is covered in the theory - Mary had latent in her both egg and sperm, so that she could give birth to a male child without recourse to a separate sperm donor. This would mean she had within her both Ovaries and 'male' sperm producing organs (to put in broad terms). In laymans terms - God created Mary so that biologically she could produce a male child without a male sperm donor - the virgin birth.

That would make Mary both Father and Mother - but as she was outwardly a female, she is termed a she and is called the Mother of Jesus.

God does not have DNA, but does have the where-with-all to direct biological functions to produce a virgin child in one special person.

Parthenogenesis exists in nature - but not scientifically observed in nature in mammals, let alone humans. However, I submit that it is a possibilty that this is what happened.


Edit: Perhaps Mary was a special case of a hermaphrodite, where in her case outwardly she appeared to be a female, but possessed internally the ability to provide the Y chromosone to fertilise eggs she produced. (This does not to make her less special or lessens the miracle of the virgin birth - but just is a way to explain how God used natural laws to carry out the miracle):

Humans
True hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in which the person has both X and Y chromosomes (not to be confused with the typical XY chromosome of males), having both testicular and ovarian tissue, and having ambiguous-looking external genitalia. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogenetic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. Upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having dual genitalial, gonadal and genetic sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

And
http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions/ovo-testes

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

jude3 - on Original Sin, as a Muslim I don't subscribe to this idea and consider it to be something that wasn't part of Jesus' message, and is a concept only introduced into Christian Canon a few centuries after Jesus' ministry. That said, God in giving Mary the capacity to bear children without the agency of a man could also have made her also sinless. Would you agree that God could have done this?

I'm not sure of your point. You say, 'made her also sinless.' We know this is not so...the bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As a child born naturally, Mary would have the sin nature of her parents. Also, she refers to Jesus as her Lord....acknowledging her need for a saviour.

The rest of your post is pure speculation and totally unncessary. Understanding the sin nature of man is the key. Jesus was sinless so he could be our sinless atonement/sacrifice. We know this from the text...so there is no need to create threads like this to agonise over the matter in a 'human understanding' manner. Accept the text for what it is.

Kind regards

[Shafique]

Jude - as I said, I am Muslim and therefore don't share your belief in Original Sin or the belief that Jesus is part of the Trinity.

However, given your belief in Original Sin I was asking whether God in his omnipotence couldn't have created Mary without sin and given her the capability to conceive a child biologically without the need for a super-natural impregnation.

Also, if you believe Mary did inherit original sin because she had two normal parents - why would Jesus not inherit the same sin given that his Mother gave birth to him? This is rhetorical - as I know Christian doctrine is that Jesus is sinless whereas everyone else is born with original sin.

I do accept the text from God as it is - and accept the Bible for what it is. Where Jesus says there are things that will be revealed only after he has left, I take that to mean there will be a future message from God that will come after Jesus' ministry. A billion plus people recognise that message to be the Quran.

Now - what you dismiss as 'totally unnecessary' for you may not be the case for the rest of us. I'm asking whether the scientific/biological explanation for a virgin birth could explain the issues raised in the OP. I think it does, and it answers the DNA question too.

Cheers,
Shafique

[hyd]

DNA can have number of scenarios, whats the point really? Here somebody explains the plausibility (but that is beside the point in Islam) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ive_birth.html

In the end, we have to believe as muslim in both unseen and seen, both makes up the faith as we cannot know everything.

[jude3]

However, given your belief in Original Sin I was asking whether God in his omnipotence couldn't have created Mary without sin and given her the capability to conceive a child biologically without the need for a super-natural impregnation.

Your question is hypothetical and has been answered in scripture already. The text says that all have sinned...and the text DOESN'T say anything about Mary being sinless. This is what Roman Catholicism adds to scripture and it is wrong.

Also, if you believe Mary did inherit original sin because she had two normal parents - why would Jesus not inherit the same sin given that his Mother gave birth to him? This is rhetorical - as I know Christian doctrine is that Jesus is sinless whereas everyone else is born with original sin.

You are creating a human construct. We DO know Mary was normal and a sinner...she had human parents...and there is no text to say otherwise. The fact that the Holy Spirit caused the conception shows the Jesus' sinless state...as sin is carried through generations via normal female/male conception. We have a great verse - for sin entered the world through one man (ADAm), but righteousness entered the world through one man, Christ Jesus.

I

do accept the text from God as it is - and accept the Bible for what it is. Where Jesus says there are things that will be revealed only after he has left, I take that to mean there will be a future message from God that will come after Jesus' ministry. A billion plus people recognise that message to be the Quran.

Sadly, I understand your point. The NT clearly shows that after Jesus ascended, then the Holy Spirit came to direct and give knowledge. You say you accept the bible...but why not accept Jesus onw words on this matter...? He said, when I leave, the Comforter will come and guide you in all truth. The canon of scripture was closed...and Jesus' own words in Revelation warned about taking away or adding to it. The Koran is not a new revelation, as it contradicts the first revelation....eg Jesus deity, crucifixion etc.

Now - what you dismiss as 'totally unnecessary' for you may not be the case for the rest of us. I'm asking whether the scientific/biological explanation for a virgin birth could explain the issues raised in the OP. I think it does, and it answers the DNA question too.

My apologies...I didn;'t mean to make it sound like that. What I meant is that we have text to show what happened....so it is not a debate about science etc...it's about accepting the text or not...faith or no faith. We might as well debate the colour of heaven or number of stars, or any other such matter. But, I understand where you're coming from...because all cults will try and explain away the deity of Christ.

Kind regards

[jude3]

Shafique

Is there one miracle in Islam that cannot be explained by natural (secular) science...? Can you give me an example, please?

Thanks

[Shafique]

The NT clearly shows that after Jesus ascended, then the Holy Spirit came to direct and give knowledge. You say you accept the bible...but why not accept Jesus onw words on this matter...? He said, when I leave, the Comforter will come and guide you in all truth.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your views and beliefs.

Your point about Roman Catholics making Mary sinless is a point I had overlooked - i.e. that if I had asked the question about God making Mary without original sin to a RC they would have said 'yes'.

Your comment about Roman Catholicism adding a new teaching to the religion taught by Jesus is something I can fully relate to. From a Muslim perspective, we have no issue with believing and following what Jesus taught. Where we part company is in teachings that emanate from St Paul and what was written/selected after the Church had done it's internal conferences on theology - Nicea, Trent etc.

I believe Jesus when he said he had only come to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, that he did not come to break with the Judaic laws, but fulfil them. We don't eat pork, like he didn't. We are circumcised, like he was. We pray to the same God he prayed and prostrate ourselves like he did and like he taught his disciples. I know the Lord's prayer off by heart and have no problem reciting it - it is how he taught people to pray. Who he told people to pray to is God - who art in heaven - and never asked anyone to pray to him.

Just like you believe Roman Catholics are wrong to deify Mary, we share the belief of the earliest 'Jewish Christians' that Jesus was not God. We share the logic of Bishop Arian who argued at Nicea about Jesus' nature.

We just differ on the identity of the Comforter that Jesus predicted would come only after he had left. We don't think this can refer to the Holy Ghost, because the Bible itself says that the Holy Ghost was present amongst the disciples when Jesus was preaching in Palestine. If the comforter would only come after Jesus had gone, that means the Comforter was not there at the time - so it can't be the Holy Ghost.

So for us, Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils this role and is also the prophecised Prophet that John the Baptist was asked about. Muhammad, pbuh, also fulfils the criteria in Deut 18.20 for how to judge whether a claimant to prophethood is true.

And, to bring the post back to the topic on hand - the message brought by the 'Comforter' is literally in the name of God, revealed line by line, and tells us of things not known before. One of the issues explained in the nature of Jesus - that he was indeed the Messiah of the Israelites and was a Prophet of God who did not die an accursed death. God is one and hasn't got a son.

I do believe Jesus' words when he describes himself as the son of Man, and also believe him when he explains in the beatitudes that the peacekeepers will be blessed and be called the children of God (IIRC).

There's much that we will agree upon - how Jesus taught us to live our lives, how he taught us to pray, how he taught us to treat other creations of God. Where we'll differ is really on what St Paul brought and what the Jewish Christians rejected.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

Jesus' most beloved disciple wrote of Jesus -

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.


The matter is not about the apostle Paul, Nicea etc....it's about Jesus own words/claims...plus those of his disciples. The scriptures were written well before Nicea.

Even if you were hung up on Paul...Jesus himself called Paul to the ministry. "Paul, Paul...why do you persecute me." Jesus said from heaven to Paul. Then, Paul received special revelation from heaven re the gospel. If you deny this, then you have no solid basis to accept Mohammad received special revelation. It's called a level playing field.