Scientifically… how was Jesus born without a father ?
How was he formed in Mary's womb?
I want scientific answers, not supernatural.
__________________________
"Once you accept all your responsibilities in its totality,
you become mature.
You stop throwing tantrums and
you stop seeking messiahs.
Then there is no need for any Jesus to save you.
Nor can any Jesus save you -
he was exploiting your situation." --- Osho
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sex would be a scientific answer? 
__________________________
"Once you accept all your responsibilities in its totality,
you become mature.
You stop throwing tantrums and
you stop seeking messiahs.
Then there is no need for any Jesus to save you.
Nor can any Jesus save you -
he was exploiting your situation." --- Osho
Sex would be a scientific answer?
Let's put it this way.
The historical answer is that the Jesus of the Bible never actually existed.
The scientific answer is that parthenogenesis is just not an option. So if that Jesus ever existed, he came into this world like any other human being. But that would render the very question useless, because he would have had a father then.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
I suppose you can believe what you want. I personally believe that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. I believe they conceived a child, Jesus. Perhaps they were not married. I suppose at that time, illegitimacy was very bad. I'm not an atheist. I do admire the good moral issues and lessons of religion, but I have a hard time believing the magic parts. I personally believe that we all (humans) are Homosapiens. We all are related. I believe that religion divides people, anthropology unites people of all cultures and religions. For me, it is impolite to talk about religion, because you never know who you will offend.
To answer your question, it is whatever you believe. How can anyone else answer that question for you?
Good luck
__________________________
Viele Grüße aus Amerika,
Scott
Wrong channel... You want scientific answers try the science channel.
I'll help by moving this over there.
Topic moved - given reason:
Sunny days... chasing the clouds away
I'm not an atheist. I do admire the good moral issues and lessons of religion, but I have a hard time believing the magic parts.
Sorry to disappoint you but...you're an atheist. You just have to realise it.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
I think if women were to figure this out..men might lose some of their glamor.
__________________________
The best way to cheer yourself up...is to cheer somebody else up..
MT
I think if women were to figure this out..men might lose some of their glamor.
Science is figuring it out. Scientists have created the first embryos through parthenogenesis, a major achievement in stem cell research. But 2,000 years ago....that's just a bit too unlikely, unless Mary was a Cnemidophorus neomexicanus. Can you imagine a lizard-Jesus? Female, btw. That's one of the downsides of parthenogenesis.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
I think if women were to figure this out..men might lose some of their glamor.
Science is figuring it out. Scientists have created the first embryos through parthenogenesis, a major achievement in stem cell research. But 2,000 years ago....that's just a bit too unlikely, unless Mary was a Cnemidophorus neomexicanus. Can you imagine a lizard-Jesus? Female, btw. That's one of the downsides of parthenogenesis.
yes... it always produces a female because of the 2 x chromosomes..but I believe I read that it had been tried artificially on small mammals..
with success.
__________________________
The best way to cheer yourself up...is to cheer somebody else up..
MT
I think if women were to figure this out..men might lose some of their glamor.
Science is figuring it out. Scientists have created the first embryos through parthenogenesis, a major achievement in stem cell research. But 2,000 years ago....that's just a bit too unlikely, unless Mary was a Cnemidophorus neomexicanus. Can you imagine a lizard-Jesus? Female, btw. That's one of the downsides of parthenogenesis.
yes... it always produces a female because of the 2 x chromosomes..but I believe I read that it had been tried artificially on small mammals..
with success.
Even on bigger mammals. Human embryos were created by parthenogenesis.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
Well, let's think about it hypothetically, which may I remind you, requires us to put aside our biased mindsets for a moment.
Scenario 1: Jesus did not exist, he was just a book character (because there is no God). If this is the case, then this is a perfectly scientific and rational explanation.
Scenario 2: Man + Woman = Baby Jesus (there is no God). Once more, I agree that if there is no God then this is clearly scientific and Jesus was just a normal man, perhaps just a wise teacher whose life and words became exaggerated through time.
Scenario 3: If a God exists, then let us use the dense matter encased within our skulls; he created the universe and everything in it by the laws he set, which also maintain the balance and function of the universe. These laws are what we classify as science and may I add, not just wishy-washy debateable theory. After all, if there is a Father of all creation, he most surely is the Father of scientific law, as well as the ultimate scientist and mathematician.
So therefore, it is perfectly feasible to say that if God actually exists, then Jesus could have been born without a human father because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit as God willed (he, as I mentioned, being the ultimate scientist who made and shaped everything according to his laws, could have in this case, and still does so). In direct relation to this, our knowledge of science (and observation of it, dare I use such a term) is limited and will always be so, and we cannot put it into a box and tell it what it can and cannot do, which situations it is and is not responsible for (without solid proof) and expect that to be a reality. What I am saying is that the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit could indeed be scientifically done through God because do we know everything about science yet? No.
This obviously applies to God (the ultimate scientist); just because our limited intelligence and capability would like to put God(if he exists) into a box and tell him what he can and cannot do, does not actually mean those are his limitations. We forget that if there is a creator, our puny brains and limited capabilities could never fully grasp the magnitude of his ability and infinite wisdom.
We're supposedly designed in his/her/its image. Our intellect should supposedly mirror his/hers/its, and it should be enough to grasp his/her/its nature. And if he/she/it acts upon the physical world, we should be able to notice it.
Pointing out how limited we are is just a nice and easy way out, not evidence. Do we know everything about science? No. Does it mean we should believe some deity decided to make a woman give birth by parthogenesis, leaving no empirical evidence, without making it happen again in history, without showing up to say "I did it," and leaving us to wonder whether he/she/it actually exists, to the point that also those who profess a belief in him/her/it are forced to use hypothetical periods when discussing the topic? This is not science, this is faith. Let's just be honest.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
We're supposedly designed in his/her/its image. Our intellect should supposedly mirror his/hers/its, and it should be enough to grasp his/her/its nature. And if he/she/it acts upon the physical world, we should be able to notice it.
Pointing out how limited we are is just a nice and easy way out, not evidence. Do we know everything about science? No. Does it mean we should believe some deity decided to make a woman give birth by parthogenesis, leaving no empirical evidence, without making it happen again in history, without showing up to say "I did it," and leaving us to wonder whether he/she/it actually exists, to the point that also those who profess a belief in him/her/it are forced to use hypothetical periods when discussing the topic? This is not science, this is faith. Let's just be honest.
I obviously meant parthenogenesis there. I'll never get used to typing on a laptop...
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
An open letter to all who are argueing various hypothoses about jesus..Stop wasting your time,i can prove there was at that time a man named in english jesus..How!!simple ,i neither know nor care about roman records but as i previously told you wings we jews know that he was brilliant,how?because without relation to christianity it is recorded in the talmud,an empirical observation..So there is no need to try to prove his existance,he existed...the challenge ,to my eyes, that exists for christianity,is to prove his divinity...As far as i am concerned,if you believe he was divine ,go for it,it's your life and your right to believe in it without persecution,now or ever...
We're supposedly designed in his/her/its image. Our intellect should supposedly mirror his/hers/its, and it should be enough to grasp his/her/its nature. And if he/she/it acts upon the physical world, we should be able to notice it.
Pointing out how limited we are is just a nice and easy way out, not evidence. Do we know everything about science? No. Does it mean we should believe some deity decided to make a woman give birth by parthogenesis, leaving no empirical evidence, without making it happen again in history, without showing up to say "I did it," and leaving us to wonder whether he/she/it actually exists, to the point that also those who profess a belief in him/her/it are forced to use hypothetical periods when discussing the topic? This is not science, this is faith. Let's just be honest.
In my case I thought I made it rather clear why I used 'hypothetical periods', however, it seems I shall have to repeat myself. The reason I wrote hypothetically was because it
requires us to put aside our biased mindsets for a moment.
Now clearly the inclusion of 'us' means that I was encouraging everyone to think hypothetically about each possible scenario, because considering something with a sense of neutrality is far more just and sensible. Moreover, it is also the most objective way one may reach a rational conclusion. Also, I am sure you understand that if one produces a contextually valid point, then one should explain it because this is sense, and therefore not the professing of beliefs.
So now, pointing out that we would be limited if a God exists is logical. If we are supposedly designed in his image that does not mean we are an exact duplicate of God in all his essences, we are not Gods. It means we are like him by having certain desires and personality traits, a high intellectual capacity and authority compared to other species ...we have all of these likenesses but to an extent. Now the fact we are limited is not only logical but biblical, and may I say that since we are discussing Jesus and you have used the words "designed in his/her/its image", I see no problem in bringing and using biblical concepts (if relevant) into this either.
Secondly, you say that if a God acts upon the physical world (I assume that because you are collectively speaking, you also refer to its inhabitants...?), we should be able to notice it. I agree with you, but one thing first; if you mean seeing the kind of scenario where God visibly steps out the clouds, waves at us all and announces to the world that he is doing something, then that is illogical when considering the manner of God, and would be sheer boastfulness. However, he does work physically, and if you would like to know some personal experiences in my own life where God has worked and which have boggled medical science and doctors (as I feel firsthand experiences are extremely useful examples of evidence), then I am willing to share them. Also, as you can imagine from my reference to science and doctors, these experiences are physical, not mental or emotional experiences, but things the doctors could not explain. Just say the word and I am perfectly willing to share such experiences in order for you to understand my rationalisations.
Thirdly, the fact that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God is the reason why we should not smirk off the virgin birth of Christ. Also, if it did happen then this makes the bible an absolute truth, therefore why would God need to make such a birth happen again when he said that his purpose was complete in the birth, life and death/resurrection of Jesus Christ? If we are saved once, we wouldn't need saving again. Think about the purpose of the birth of Jesus.
Finally, not only did God pop up to say that he did it afterwards, but he also popped up beforehand to say that he would do it as well. Consider the fact that the bible has been tested archeologically, historically and geographically and found accurate in all these branches and concerning general human history. Now with this in mind, remember that there are several books in The Old Testament which prophecy the manner of birth and death of Jesus before he was born, for example in Isaiah (roughly 700 years before Christ), Zechariah (just over 500 years before Jesus), Micah and so on. Obviously as you may already know, the gospels were historically written after Jesus and the cross, and discuss the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, you can also check the 'non-religious' sources from history that are around and give details of Jesus.
Secondly, you say that if a God acts upon the physical world (I assume that because you are collectively speaking, you also refer to its inhabitants...?), we should be able to notice it. I agree with you, but one thing first; if you mean seeing the kind of scenario where God visibly steps out the clouds, waves at us all and announces to the world that he is doing something, then that is illogical when considering the manner of God, and would be sheer boastfulness. However, he does work physically, and if you would like to know some personal experiences in my own life where God has worked and which have boggled medical science and doctors (as I feel firsthand experiences are extremely useful examples of evidence), then I am willing to share them. Also, as you can imagine from my reference to science and doctors, these experiences are physical, not mental or emotional experiences, but things the doctors could not explain.
Any physical proof of god's existence will do, really. But sad to say that those oh so incredible cases which "boggle medical science" don't really work as evidence. A few hundreds of years ago, a great deal of physical phenomena were considered a sign of the gods. Needless to say, they were eventually explained. The same destiny awaits those "incredible" cases. However personal and impressive they might be to you, they simply don't constitute evidence of god's existence. Sorry.
Thirdly, the fact that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God is the reason why we should not smirk off the virgin birth of Christ.
Non sequitur.
Also, if it did happen then this makes the bible an absolute truth, therefore why would God need to make such a birth happen again when he said that his purpose was complete in the birth, life and death/resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Now you just have to prove that it actually happened then.
Consider the fact that the bible has been tested archeologically, historically and geographically and found accurate in all these branches and concerning general human history.
Are we talking about the same Bible? Seriously, that's not true, not even in your wildest dreams, I'm afraid. Not a single piece of archaeological evidence to support the claim that the main character of the NT actually existed. Not a single piece of evidence that the Exodus actually happened. History is against you.
Now with this in mind, remember that there are several books in The Old Testament which prophecy the manner of birth and death of Jesus before he was born, for example in Isaiah (roughly 700 years before Christ), Zechariah (just over 500 years before Jesus), Micah and so on. Obviously as you may already know, the gospels were historically written after Jesus and the cross, and discuss the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, you can also check the 'non-religious' sources from history that are around and give details of Jesus.
*dies* Wait, you're actually saying that Jesus existed because an older Jewish source foresees the coming of a prophet and saviour displaying all the traits of Jesus? That's quite funny. Too bad it makes no sense. Look at it this way: the authors of the gospels, who were of course not contemporary of the Jesus that never was, created the character drawing inspiration from Jewish tradition, making him the son of god and saviour of the Jewish people, born of a virgin woman. Not to mention that some of those traits were common to other traditions, such as the Greek or Roman ones.
By the way, what "non-religious" sources are you talking about? I hope not Josephus, because those passages in The Antiquities of the Jews were proven to be later forgeries, probably medieval. As for Pliny or Tacitus, they simply mentioned the "Cristus" that was the idol of the Christians of their time, but they never referred to any living person. How come you and a few others keep on claiming that there are contemporary witnesses of Jesus, when even Christian scholars have had to admit there was actually none? Not a single first century author or historian says anything about that Jesus of the Bible. Period.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
What about the paganistic stories about sun gods, (christmas) sons of gods, (Jesus) virgin births (mary) and many others from which the bible stories have obviously been copied from? Reference to this was given in the books of Dan Brown. I don't think he just invented them. The author did a lot of research and not everything he wrote is fictional. He said that there is nothing original in christianity. It has been copied and modified to create the stories in the bible texts.
__________________________
"Once you accept all your responsibilities in its totality,
you become mature.
You stop throwing tantrums and
you stop seeking messiahs.
Then there is no need for any Jesus to save you.
Nor can any Jesus save you -
he was exploiting your situation." --- Osho
guys come on!!what is this predated ante dated CRAP the parts of the talmud relating to jesus were written in REALTIME by people who SAW him...as i said yesterday your arguement about the existence or not of jesus as a man are simply pathetic...you must try to concentrate on was he divine or not,but to say he did not exist shaka is like saying vespasianus did not exist...As for archeology about him ,i raised a point a couple of weeks ago about a sealed tomb in talpiot..the topic was closed because archeology stinks and it was old hat ...Science discovers and archeology discovers..my information is that behind the scenes Amercans are beginning to put on atomic pressure to have that tomb opened..suppose it takes care of the archaelogy side of matters?proress ,no!!?
the parts of the talmud relating to jesus were written in REALTIME by people who SAW him...
I fail to see how that's at all possible, given that even the oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was written at the beginning of the 3rd century CE.
as i said yesterday your arguement about the existence or not of jesus as a man are simply pathetic...
Nope, they're the result of an overwhelming lack of historical and archaeological evidence that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed.
you must try to concentrate on was he divine or not,but to say he did not exist shaka is like saying vespasianus did not exist...
The divinity of a fictional character can't quite be disproved, can it? As for Vespasian, we know a great deal more about him than we know about the Jesus of the Bible. Vespasian existed.
As for archeology about him ,i raised a point a couple of weeks ago about a sealed tomb in talpiot..the topic was closed because archeology stinks and it was old hat ...Science discovers and archeology discovers..my information is that behind the scenes Amercans are beginning to put on atomic pressure to have that tomb opened..suppose it takes care of the archaelogy side of matters?proress ,no!!?
I haven't read the thread. But the Talpiot Tomb is not really of any interest to me, for a few reasons. A tomb containing a few ossuaries and an inscription supposedly saying "Jesus son of Joseph" - although it would be just honest to say that the inscription is highly disputed among religious scholars and historians alike - means that between the 6th century BCE and the 1st century CE, a man out of the thousands named Yeshu (or similar) living in the area back then was buried in that tomb. Great. And what's so astonishing? Do you think someone will get hype in a few hundred years when the tomb of Mr. John Smith is uncovered somewhere?
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
Being a qualified scientist and therefore incredibly smart (as well as handsome) I've always known the answer to this topic... but it's so short and uninteresting I never bothered to mention it.
Ther is no scientific answer. That's it... end of story. Never had been and probably never will be... unless some new evidence comes to light explaining the immacuate contraption on which scientific study can take place. Until then, there just isn't the data necessary to formulate a scientific explanation for what happened.
After explaing that rather nicely (sorry about the answer... it's a bit of a letdown I know) I'll let you guys carry on with your far less intellectual but far more interesting yes it is no it isn't debate.
Until then, there just isn't the data necessary to formulate a scientific explanation for what happened.
Or for what didn't happen. Let's not take things for granted.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
The topic is implying the assumption it happened so my words were valid in reference to the topic, and there is no need to take anything for granted because the topic obviously exists.
Shaka, perhaps it would be best to start a new topic if it is necessary to discuss this further as we have strayed from the original question, to some extent.
Before I respond to your previous post, I just wanted to mention a few things:
1) Who do you actually think Jesus was? Is your perspective that Jesus never existed or that he did but that his character and life were greatly exaggerated?
2) I get the impression that although you ask for signs/proof/answers/evidence, you don't really want them, and that you would choose to never believe them anyway.
3) Cut the sarcasm in this instance. You're an intelligent and rational man and your sarcasm only attracts reproach to your argument and makes you seem childish. There's no need for it because it's just an unintelligent way of saying nothing.
Shaka, perhaps it would be best to start a new topic if it is necessary to discuss this further as we have strayed from the original question, to some extent.
Before I respond to your previous post, I just wanted to mention a few things:
1) Who do you actually think Jesus was? Is your perspective that Jesus never existed or that he did but that his character and life were greatly exaggerated?
2) I get the impression that although you ask for signs/proof/answers/evidence, you don't really want them, and that you would choose to never believe them anyway.
3) Cut the sarcasm in this instance. You're an intelligent and rational man and your sarcasm only attracts reproach to your argument and makes you seem childish. There's no need for it because it's just an unintelligent way of saying nothing.
1) There was quite a crowd of men named Yashua, Yeshu - or any other variation of the name - back then, and there was quite a crowd of self-professed sons of god, messiahs, saviours, healers and what not. Could that have inspired the authors of the gospels? No doubt. But they made some terrible historical mistakes when writing their novels.
2) Wrong impression. There simply is no evidence, be it historical or archaeological. Seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with Jesus being real, given that his existence still wouldn't prove his divinity, as some pointed out already. But there is simply no reason to believe or rationally think that the Jesus of the gospels ever existed.
3) Sarcasm is a wonderful art, appreciated by few, misunderstood by most, considered childish and unintelligent by the latter group. But, as you can probably imagine, I couldn't care less. The complaints of most aren't really worth the time you waste listening to them, whereas the few usually turn out to be pretty interesting people.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
3) Sarcasm is a wonderful art, appreciated by few, misunderstood by most, considered childish and unintelligent by the latter group. But, as you can probably imagine, I couldn't care less. The complaints of most aren't really worth the time you waste listening to them, whereas the few usually turn out to be pretty interesting people.
*Yawn* No really, it does make you look childish, no need for an ego-manicure.
Anyway, with the first two answers in mind, I'll get back to you as soon as my study hours allow. 
Anyway, with the first two answers in mind, I'll get back to you as soon as my study hours allow. :)
Well, unless you can come up with new, surprising pieces of evidence to support the belief that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed, you might as well keep on focusing on your studies. You're probably better off that way.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
the talmud was written in babylon 500 years before the common era and therefore is know as the Babylonian Talmud,it was codified on the orders of yehudah hanasi...
perhaps you are referring to the much later Jerusalem talmud,or do you think perhaps that there were no erudite people around to comment..perhaps there were no people at all ,jesus existed in a vacuum???
the talmud was written in babylon 500 years before the common era and therefore is know as the Babylonian Talmud,it was codified on the orders of yehudah hanasi...
perhaps you are referring to the much later Jerusalem talmud,or do you think perhaps that there were no erudite people around to comment..perhaps there were no people at all ,jesus existed in a vacuum???
perhaps you are referring to the much later Jerusalem talmud,or do you think perhaps that there were no erudite people around to comment..perhaps there were no people at all ,jesus existed in a vacuum???
The Babylonian Talmud was written as a commentary to the Mishnah over several centuries starting from no earlier than the beginning of the 3rd century CE, but the text was not compiled in its modern form probably until the 8th century CE. Nevertheless, you could say it was completed by Ravina II some time in the late 5th century CE, definitely not 500 BCE...
Nice try though.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen
Talmud =mishnah and gemarra together ...I just flicked into a few sites looking for something in english for you,the type of thing even a totally closed mind could handle,i suggest you google jesus talmud or jesus and the talmud..As for vespasian,since the romans one easily the west learns their version of vespasian ,..to us he was a murderous,avaricius pagan idle worshipper...he wasn't even an atheist,didnt he commission the building of the colosseum..For millions of people in the world who seem to have it tough jesus is good...You are trying to take it away...
A scientific answer. He wasn't.
__________________________
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen