- This topic is empty.
- Posts
From another thread:
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 25 2010,00:12) Can a Virgin be artificially inseminated, YES or NO? Yes, it today's medical world. It could have been done throughout history through various means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination
If Mary was artificially inseminated, my questions then are:
(1) For what purpose? Was Joseph impotent or did he have a low sperm count?
(2) Since the right to the throne of David passes through paternal bloodline, who was the donor? We can throw out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke if the donor was someone else.
(3) If the donor was Joseph, why not have the child the regular way?Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 25 2010,22:08) If Mary was artificially inseminated, my questions then are:
(1) For what purpose? Was Joseph impotent or did he have a low sperm count?
(2) Since the right to the throne of David passes through paternal bloodline, who was the donor? We can throw out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke if the donor was someone else.
(3) If the donor was Joseph, why not have the child the regular way?
Question #2
wouldn't you throw out those genealogies anyway if the donor was the Holy Spirit and not Joseph?Geneologies never included adopted fathers.
Tim
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 25 2010,22:08) From another thread: Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 25 2010,00:12) Can a Virgin be artificially inseminated, YES or NO? Yes, it today's medical world. It could have been done throughout history through various means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination
If Mary was artificially inseminated, my questions then are:
(1) For what purpose? Was Joseph impotent or did he have a low sperm count?
(2) Since the right to the throne of David passes through paternal bloodline, who was the donor? We can throw out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke if the donor was someone else.
(3) If the donor was Joseph, why not have the child the regular way?
So you do agree that Jesus could have been born of a virgin, correct?Joseph was the biological father of Jesus according to Saul of Tarsus:
Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed [David's] hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.Romans 1:3
Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. ….Hebrews 2:16
For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David.Meantime, the gospel writers had already invented (or shifted in time) a census in order to move Jesus’s birthplace to where they thought prophecy had to have him born, and then they had this bit of Isaiah, which they thought they would also have to weave into their Jesus myth with a bit of invention:
Iisaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
First you have the translation issue that gives us ‘virgin’. Maybe the writers of Isaiah really did mean virgin: Virgin birth is an age-old myth and they could have been repeating it in their own writing. Secondly you have the bit about the name Immanuel. Is that a translation of the name Jesus??
Actually IT WAS a virgin birth, according to these anonymous accounts:
Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.Matthew 22:45
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?Mark 12:35-37
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?Luke 1:31-35
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring for a son, and shalt call his name Jesus …. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be seeing I know not a man. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.The writer of Matthew even explains why he has invented this myth:
Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.It would not be unreasonable to rewrite this as: here I present you with my version, which ticks all the prophecy-fulfilling boxes you require.
Never mind whether there really was a Jesus, or whether any of the mythology written about him actually happened. The alleged massacre of the innocents by Herod falls into the same category as the census.
I don’t think artificial insemination is what the gospel writers had in mind, does anyone?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 25 2010,18:04) So you do agree that Jesus could have been born of a virgin, correct?
Only if you can tell me who the sperm donor was.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,12:20) Joseph was the biological father of Jesus according to Saul of Tarsus: Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed [David's] hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.Romans 1:3
Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. ….Hebrews 2:16
For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David.Meantime, the gospel writers had already invented (or shifted in time) a census in order to move Jesus’s birthplace to where they thought prophecy had to have him born, and then they had this bit of Isaiah, which they thought they would also have to weave into their Jesus myth with a bit of invention:
Iisaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
First you have the translation issue that gives us ‘virgin’. Maybe the writers of Isaiah really did mean virgin: Virgin birth is an age-old myth and they could have been repeating it in their own writing. Secondly you have the bit about the name Immanuel. Is that a translation of the name Jesus??
Actually IT WAS a virgin birth, according to these anonymous accounts:
Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.Matthew 22:45
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?Mark 12:35-37
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?Luke 1:31-35
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring for a son, and shalt call his name Jesus …. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be seeing I know not a man. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.The writer of Matthew even explains why he has invented this myth:
Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.It would not be unreasonable to rewrite this as: here I present you with my version, which ticks all the prophecy-fulfilling boxes you require.
Never mind whether there really was a Jesus, or whether any of the mythology written about him actually happened. The alleged massacre of the innocents by Herod falls into the same category as the census.
I don’t think artificial insemination is what the gospel writers had in mind, does anyone?
Stuart
Can you agree that virgin birth has always been possibleBD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible?
Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,18:00) BD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible? Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
Stuart
My whole point from the beginning which I stated was to show you that it is possible to be a virgin and get pregnant. You strongly disagreed and now after I have shown you that Virgin Birth is possible and in some cases quite easy.The point has been shown and you should have simply conceded and followed with ” I still don't believe that Jesus existed or Mary was a virgin if he did”
I know the Atheism Disease doesn't allow you to consider any evidence related the Bible, Quran, God or anything remotely connected but you should be capable admitting you were wrong regarding a basic topic
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2010,04:59) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,18:00) BD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible? Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
Stuart
My whole point from the beginning which I stated was to show you that it is possible to be a virgin and get pregnant. You strongly disagreed and now after I have shown you that Virgin Birth is possible and in some cases quite easy.The point has been shown and you should have simply conceded and followed with ” I still don't believe that Jesus existed or Mary was a virgin if he did”
I know the Atheism Disease doesn't allow you to consider any evidence related the Bible, Quran, God or anything remotely connected but you should be capable admitting you were wrong regarding a basic topic
Thsi “atheist disease” epithet is becoming more and more a compliment everytime you use it. The 'symptoms' appear to be that the sufferer has high standards for what they believe and do not fall for the hearsay of any old book of mythology. Such a diseased individual would have a much better chance of a high grade for a history essay because there would be more than one source cited for a realistic and balanced treatment of a topic.On the other hand, those without this 'disease' will accept as absolute truth fantasy stories about god(s) that cannot be shown to exist at all, and will refuse to listen to very plausible and evidence-supported reasons for why they would be vulnerable to believing nonsense.
Yes, I might wear this 'disease' as a badge of honour. It appears to reflect everything that is decent about modern civilisation, and appears to reject the unwelcome appearance of the Dark Age mentality.
Also, apparently, those with this 'disease' are able to give direct answers to intelligent questions, while those not afflicted seem unable to do much other than dodge good points made against their argument.
My two questions were:BD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible?
Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
Do you have enough atheist disease in you to give a straight answer to each?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,08:08) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2010,04:59) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,18:00) BD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible? Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
Stuart
My whole point from the beginning which I stated was to show you that it is possible to be a virgin and get pregnant. You strongly disagreed and now after I have shown you that Virgin Birth is possible and in some cases quite easy.The point has been shown and you should have simply conceded and followed with ” I still don't believe that Jesus existed or Mary was a virgin if he did”
I know the Atheism Disease doesn't allow you to consider any evidence related the Bible, Quran, God or anything remotely connected but you should be capable admitting you were wrong regarding a basic topic
Thsi “atheist disease” epithet is becoming more and more a compliment everytime you use it. The 'symptoms' appear to be that the sufferer has high standards for what they believe and do not fall for the hearsay of any old book of mythology. Such a diseased individual would have a much better chance of a high grade for a history essay because there would be more than one source cited for a realistic and balanced treatment of a topic.On the other hand, those without this 'disease' will accept as absolute truth fantasy stories about god(s) that cannot be shown to exist at all, and will refuse to listen to very plausible and evidence-supported reasons for why they would be vulnerable to believing nonsense.
Yes, I might wear this 'disease' as a badge of honour. It appears to reflect everything that is decent about modern civilisation, and appears to reject the unwelcome appearance of the Dark Age mentality.
Also, apparently, those with this 'disease' are able to give direct answers to intelligent questions, while those not afflicted seem unable to do much other than dodge good points made against their argument.
My two questions were:BD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible?
Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
Do you have enough atheist disease in you to give a straight answer to each?
Stuart
Quote BD What happened to your bitter defense of parthenogenesis for Jesus. Do you still believe that as a possible argument for those seeking to find a common explanation for a miracle, or have you abandoned your formerly aggressive stance on that, in favour of something you consider more plausible? Do you have the balls to actually come out and say that you actually think that Mary had the foresight to get herself artificially impregnated using Joseph's sperm so that, 70 years later, it would be possible for the gospel writers to invent a prophecy-fulfilling mythology of Jesus that was partly true on a technicality??
both quetions were non-sequitors because I had said from the beginning that “Virgin Birth” is possible and you said it was not, I then proceeded to prove to you that “Virgin Birth” has already occured.
You then unable to simply concede the point started trying to be specific to humans which I said it would still be possible regardless of genome imprinting and I pointed out you didn't even know it could occur at all even in animals so the possibilty is certainly there but you still would not concede.
Then it struck me that virginity and birth are not mutually exclusive and that of course a virgin can get pregnant .
You should have simply conceded that point and moved on but now you are using non-sequitors and trying once again to alter the context of what I was saying and no such context switching will be allowed with me.
I have definitively proved to you that VIRGIN BIRTH can and does occur so suck it up and move on to something else.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,17:49) So what happened to your human parthenogenesis argument? Have you abandoned that now? Stuart
It was never the point now was it?Just admit defeat and accept Islam
BD
Quote It was never the point now was it?
I accept your retraction of your claim that parthenogenesis is possible in humans, and your apology for ignoring the evidence concerning genomic imprinting that was presented to you, which you claimed was never presented to you.Quote Just admit defeat and accept Islam
Dear oh dear, demands now is it? You are so shallow! If you were a puddle, a flea would struggle to drown in you!Seems it is not only parthenogenesis you forgot about. What happened to your mission to just share your knowledge of god with us?
This is the truth of your belief system, isn’t it. It demands that you persist, from just a bit of gentle sharing up until the point where, since it is human beings involved, someone loses patience and well, back in the day when the transaction involved swords, heads got removed, didn’t they. Embarrassed looks: I didn’t mean to insist quite so murderously that he convert, but well he did oppress my faith by not converting, so I had little choice but to kill him.
Anyway, well done on your unreserved acknowledgment that you could not have been more wrong about your initial assertions concerning sharks and humans.
Any chance you might answer kejonn’s question about whose sperm you think gave Jesus his Y chromosome?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,00:56) BD Quote It was never the point now was it?
I accept your retraction of your claim that parthenogenesis is possible in humans, and your apology for ignoring the evidence concerning genomic imprinting that was presented to you, which you claimed was never presented to you.Quote Just admit defeat and accept Islam
Dear oh dear, demands now is it? You are so shallow! If you were a puddle, a flea would struggle to drown in you!Seems it is not only parthenogenesis you forgot about. What happened to your mission to just share your knowledge of god with us?
This is the truth of your belief system, isn’t it. It demands that you persist, from just a bit of gentle sharing up until the point where, since it is human beings involved, someone loses patience and well, back in the day when the transaction involved swords, heads got removed, didn’t they. Embarrassed looks: I didn’t mean to insist quite so murderously that he convert, but well he did oppress my faith by not converting, so I had little choice but to kill him.
Anyway, well done on your unreserved acknowledgment that you could not have been more wrong about your initial assertions concerning sharks and humans.
Any chance you might answer kejonn’s question about whose sperm you think gave Jesus his Y chromosome?
Stuart
You seem to keep asserting some sort of Moral compass which you said did not exist which is it?Do you find Muhammad to be Immoral?
If so based on what, you said Morals were relative and cannot be absolute.
We were not having a discussion on genome imprinting or parthogenesis we were having a discussion on virgin birth.
by the way Human parthogenesis is currently being worked on:
How long will it be before human parthenogenesis is achieved?
Researchers from the same biotech company that supported the current research, Advanced Cell Technologies, created considerable controversy in November of last year when they announced they had cloned human embryos. The embryos had not grown beyond six cells and had not produced stem cells. While the race is on to create parthenogenetic human embryos, considerable doubts remain regarding the safety and efficacy of this approach. Researchers believe that the male DNA that mixes with the females DNA in the egg probably has an important role to play in gene activation in at least some kinds of stem cells. For example, studies in mice produced parthenogenetically suggest that those stem cells differentiate more readily into neurons than into other cell types such a muscle. The hypothesis that such cells would indeed be immune-privileged also remains unproven.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Partho….2424262What will you say when this happens? you'll say you weren't talking about assisted parthogenesis, right?
The second sex chromosome of men -Y chromosome determines the male sex and besides that information it is almost empty
Did you see that? I'm going to teach you how much you really don't know. Once you know how ignorant you are perhaps you will be able to become humble and realize God.
BD
Quote You seem to keep asserting some sort of Moral compass which you said did not exist which is it?
Where did I say we have no moral compass? I remember explaining to you how it works!Quote Do you find Muhammad to be Immoral?
You couldn’t tell?? Yes, absolutely he was immoral! I consider sex with underage girls wrong, as is winding people up until they do something that you consider to be oppression of your faith and using that as justification for homicide.Quote If so based on what, you said Morals were relative and cannot be absolute.
No I didn’t, I’m afraid. Did you learn illiteracy from mohammad too?Quote We were not having a discussion on genome imprinting or parthogenesis we were having a discussion on virgin birth. by the way Human parthogenesis is currently being worked on:
So it hasn’t yet been observed then! I’m glad to see you admitting it…in a weird kind of way.Quote How long will it be before human parthenogenesis is achieved? Researchers from the same biotech company that supported the current research, Advanced Cell Technologies, created considerable controversy in November of last year when they announced they had cloned human embryos. The embryos had not grown beyond six cells and had not produced stem cells. While the race is on to create parthenogenetic human embryos, considerable doubts remain regarding the safety and efficacy of this approach. Researchers believe that the male DNA that mixes with the females DNA in the egg probably has an important role to play in gene activation in at least some kinds of stem cells. For example, studies in mice produced parthenogenetically suggest that those stem cells differentiate more readily into neurons than into other cell types such a muscle. The hypothesis that such cells would indeed be immune-privileged also remains unproven.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Partho….2424262What will you say when this happens? you'll say you weren't talking about assisted parthogenesis, right?
I don’t think a spontaneous birth of a human without the involvement of a sperm cell has, or will ever happen. That is all I have said at any stage, and only as a response to your insistence that it has happened.Quote The second sex chromosome of men -Y chromosome determines the male sex and besides that information it is almost empty Did you see that? I'm going to teach you how much you really don't know. Once you know how ignorant you are perhaps you will be able to become humble and realize God.
On this evidence you know very little about the Y chromosome. I would not sign up for your classes in genetics, that’s for sure!Is ‘becoming humble’ a requirement for ‘realising’ your god? Why does your god discriminate in this way? Surely it should be more obvious to anyone than that, if it is SO true!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,10:17) BD Quote You seem to keep asserting some sort of Moral compass which you said did not exist which is it?
Where did I say we have no moral compass? I remember explaining to you how it works!Quote Do you find Muhammad to be Immoral?
You couldn’t tell?? Yes, absolutely he was immoral! I consider sex with underage girls wrong, as is winding people up until they do something that you consider to be oppression of your faith and using that as justification for homicide.Quote If so based on what, you said Morals were relative and cannot be absolute.
No I didn’t, I’m afraid. Did you learn illiteracy from mohammad too?Quote We were not having a discussion on genome imprinting or parthogenesis we were having a discussion on virgin birth. by the way Human parthogenesis is currently being worked on:
So it hasn’t yet been observed then! I’m glad to see you admitting it…in a weird kind of way.Quote How long will it be before human parthenogenesis is achieved? Researchers from the same biotech company that supported the current research, Advanced Cell Technologies, created considerable controversy in November of last year when they announced they had cloned human embryos. The embryos had not grown beyond six cells and had not produced stem cells. While the race is on to create parthenogenetic human embryos, considerable doubts remain regarding the safety and efficacy of this approach. Researchers believe that the male DNA that mixes with the females DNA in the egg probably has an important role to play in gene activation in at least some kinds of stem cells. For example, studies in mice produced parthenogenetically suggest that those stem cells differentiate more readily into neurons than into other cell types such a muscle. The hypothesis that such cells would indeed be immune-privileged also remains unproven.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Partho….2424262What will you say when this happens? you'll say you weren't talking about assisted parthogenesis, right?
I don’t think a spontaneous birth of a human without the involvement of a sperm cell has, or will ever happen. That is all I have said at any stage, and only as a response to your insistence that it has happened.Quote The second sex chromosome of men -Y chromosome determines the male sex and besides that information it is almost empty Did you see that? I'm going to teach you how much you really don't know. Once you know how ignorant you are perhaps you will be able to become humble and realize God.
On this evidence you know very little about the Y chromosome. I would not sign up for your classes in genetics, that’s for sure!Is ‘becoming humble’ a requirement for ‘realising’ your god? Why does your god discriminate in this way? Surely it should be more obvious to anyone than that, if it is SO true!
Stuart
Yes, absolutely he was immoralSo Absolute Truth does exist?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
