Medical Explanation For Virgin Birth?

[Era Might]

I'm doing research for a paper on stem cells and I came across something called parthenogenesis. Basically a female egg has 46 chromosomes before fertilization (gametes are supposed to have 23). At fertilization, half of these are disposed, and the other half are used to pair with a male gamete. Scientists have been able to treat the egg to keep all 46 chromosomes. I looked it up and I found a document at the Vatican website which condemns this procedure. However, I was thinking that this may have been how the Virgin Birth was brought about (without the scientific manipulation). Our Lord needed 46 chromosomes like every other human being (I assume), and since he didn't have a human father, he could only receive 23 chromosomes from Our Lady. With parthenogenesis, apparantly, it is possible for a female egg to keep 46 chromosomes. Humans don't do this naturally (that we know of), but some salamanders apparantly do. Not to take away the mystery from the Virgin Birth, because I don't think we need to explain it. But, I thought it was an interesting possibility. Maybe it would at least force skeptics to reconsider the Virgin Birth.

[Templari]

Interesting idea, i would doubt that it is naturally possible for humans. I would really think against it because the virgin birth is a mystery, and to take away the mystery is bordering on heresy. I do see why you think it is an interesting idea, but the point of converting sceptics is converting them to Christianity(and all the ideas she holds) as opposed to some other form of pseudo-christianity.... I think in the end, it would only cause problems.

[Era Might]

I was thinking maybe it's similar to archaeological discoveries of Old Testament events. For example, if they really did find Pharaoh and his chariots under the Red Sea, that would be a pretty big discovery. Not that it matters to our faith one way or the other, we know that God parted the Red Sea. But, I definitely hear you about the mystery, and I don't think we should go too far trying to discover how it happened. I just thought of it as a passing thought, not so much wondering if this is how it actually happened, but more so wondering if it could shed some light on the possibility that a virgin birth could take place, with Divine intervention on a natural phenomena. It would still require a miracle to bring this natural phenomena to the point where it actually develops into a child.

[Templari]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1235145' date='Apr 8 2007, 02:57 PM']I was thinking maybe it's similar to archaeological discoveries of Old Testament events. For example, if they really did find Pharaoh and his chariots under the Red Sea, that would be a pretty big discovery. Not that it matters to our faith one way or the other, we know that God parted the Red Sea. But, I definitely hear you about the mystery, and I don't think we should go too far trying to discover how it happened. I just thought of it as a passing thought, not so much wondering if this is how it actually happened, but more so wondering if it could shed some light on the possibility that a virgin birth could take place, with Divine intervention on a natural phenomena. It would still require a miracle to bring this natural phenomena to the point where it actually develops into a child.[/quote]
Well... the differences are that old testament historical events are only historical events and not Doctrines. With faith alone we should be confident that the virgin birth could take place.... im not lecturing you here on your lack of faith or anything(or implying that you have lack of faith... i think i do understand what you are saying perfectly) but i believe that pursuing this, should we say that this is entirely possible instead of giving us a place to say that a miracle could have taken place, it would instead encourage us to say no miracle took place. It would be similar too those people who say things like "the miracle of the loaves and fish, is that everyone shared their own food." Instead of this inspiring us to be more generous, or trusting that God takes care of us in ordinary ways, it "inspires" us to doubt the real miraculous powers of God.

So basically i guess im saying, even if this is scientifically possible it would likely do more spiritual harm to us. But i guess it could sorta be talked about in the way that Intelligent Design(God Controlled Evolution) is used to explain Creation (6 day creation is still more or less the official position of the church but not neccessary for creation.)

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1235131' date='Apr 8 2007, 02:30 PM']I'm doing research for a paper on stem cells and I came across something called parthenogenesis. Basically a female egg has 46 chromosomes before fertilization (gametes are supposed to have 23). At fertilization, half of these are disposed, and the other half are used to pair with a male gamete. Scientists have been able to treat the egg to keep all 46 chromosomes. I looked it up and I found a document at the Vatican website which condemns this procedure. However, I was thinking that this may have been how the Virgin Birth was brought about (without the scientific manipulation). Our Lord needed 46 chromosomes like every other human being (I assume), and since he didn't have a human father, he could only receive 23 chromosomes from Our Lady. With parthenogenesis, apparantly, it is possible for a female egg to keep 46 chromosomes. Humans don't do this naturally (that we know of), but some salamanders apparantly do. Not to take away the mystery from the Virgin Birth, because I don't think we need to explain it. But, I thought it was an interesting possibility. Maybe it would at least force skeptics to reconsider the Virgin Birth.[/quote]

If I recall correctly - and I may very well botch this, so please bear with me - CS Lewis described miracles as a short-circuiting of otherwise natural phenomena. For example (as I recall CS Lewis making the point), when Jesus turned water into wine, it's not that water doesn't become wine but that in the natural course of events, first it is absorbed by a grapevine, becomes the juice of a grape, is pressed as grape juice, and is ultimately fermented into wine. The miracle at Cana was a short-circuiting of this process. Anyway...

Apart from that observation, the question that arises for me is that in this scenario, Jesus' genetic material would be totally Mary's. In addition, in the normal course of affairs, all eggs are female; it is the sperm that determines whether the fertilized egg will be male or female. Of course, this is all pure speculation and raises questions that can never be answered but FWIW, these are a few thoughts.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1235131' date='Apr 8 2007, 02:30 PM']I'm doing research for a paper on stem cells and I came across something called parthenogenesis. Basically a female egg has 46 chromosomes before fertilization (gametes are supposed to have 23). At fertilization, half of these are disposed, and the other half are used to pair with a male gamete. Scientists have been able to treat the egg to keep all 46 chromosomes. I looked it up and I found a document at the Vatican website which condemns this procedure. However, I was thinking that this may have been how the Virgin Birth was brought about (without the scientific manipulation). Our Lord needed 46 chromosomes like every other human being (I assume), and since he didn't have a human father, he could only receive 23 chromosomes from Our Lady. With parthenogenesis, apparantly, it is possible for a female egg to keep 46 chromosomes. Humans don't do this naturally (that we know of), but some salamanders apparantly do. Not to take away the mystery from the Virgin Birth, because I don't think we need to explain it. But, I thought it was an interesting possibility. Maybe it would at least force skeptics to reconsider the Virgin Birth.[/quote]

This seems to be a possible answer to 'how God' did it. Here is my current speculation which could be a precursor to yours.

Thanks to Einstein and Quantum Physics, the difference between matter and energy is not that much. Turning energy into matter is a possible science, but requires a level of control. If God can control a lightning bolt, he can control such energy to become specific type of matter. So, God could have used a type of science comprehindable to us now to turn the energy of a spark into male, then located it inside of an egg.

If you want to add a step, God converted Mary's unused 23 chromosomes into energy, then back again into 23 male chromosomes.

What do you think?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Jesus would still need a male gene. Mary couldn't provide that.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1235131' date='Apr 8 2007, 01:30 PM']I'm doing research for a paper on stem cells and I came across something called parthenogenesis. Basically a female egg has 46 chromosomes before fertilization (gametes are supposed to have 23). At fertilization, half of these are disposed, and the other half are used to pair with a male gamete. Scientists have been able to treat the egg to keep all 46 chromosomes. I looked it up and I found a document at the Vatican website which condemns this procedure. However, I was thinking that this may have been how the Virgin Birth was brought about (without the scientific manipulation). Our Lord needed 46 chromosomes like every other human being (I assume), and since he didn't have a human father, he could only receive 23 chromosomes from Our Lady. With parthenogenesis, apparantly, it is possible for a female egg to keep 46 chromosomes. Humans don't do this naturally (that we know of), but some salamanders apparantly do. Not to take away the mystery from the Virgin Birth, because I don't think we need to explain it. But, I thought it was an interesting possibility. Maybe it would at least force skeptics to reconsider the Virgin Birth.[/quote]

I don't even think our Lord was made from our Lady's egg cell... I think the Holy Ghost took some of her blood and using His Divine Power formed an infant out of it.

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article III:[/b]
IN THE INCARNATION SOME THINGS WERE NATURAL,

OTHERS SUPERNATURAL

In this mystery we perceive that some things were done which transcend the order of nature, some by the power of nature. Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.

But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word,4 the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Spirit cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.*

Again - and this should overwhelm us with astonishment - as soon as the soul of Christ was united to His body, the Divinity became united to both; and thus at the same time His body was formed and animated, and the Divinity united to body and soul.

Hence, at the same instant He was perfect God and perfect man, and the most Holy Virgin, having at the same moment - conceived God and man is truly and properly called Mother of God and man. This the Angel signified to her when he said: Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High.5 The event verified the prophecy of Isaias: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.6 Elizabeth also declared the same truth when, being filled with the Holy Spirit, she understood the Conception of the Son of God, and said: Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?7

As the body of Christ was formed of the pure blood of the immaculate Virgin without the aid of man, as we have already said, and by the sole operation of the Holy Spirit, so also, at the moment of His Conception, His soul was enriched with an overflowing fulness of the Spirit of God, and a superabundance of all graces. For God gave not to Him, as to others adorned with holiness and grace, His Spirit by measure, as St. John testifies,8 but poured into His soul the plenitude of all graces so abundantly that of his fulness we all have received.9

Although possessing that Spirit by which holy men attain the adoption of sons of God, He cannot, however, be called the adopted son of God; for since He is the Son of God by nature, the grace, or name of adoption, can on no account be deemed applicable to Him.*
[i]http://catecheticsonline.com/Trent.php[/i][/quote]

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1236509' date='Apr 9 2007, 05:46 PM']Jesus would still need a male gene. Mary couldn't provide that.[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing...an XY problem.

St. Thomas. Why would it not be an egg? It is in the Womb?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1237576' date='Apr 10 2007, 07:55 AM']I was thinking the same thing...an XY problem.

St. Thomas. Why would it not be an egg? It is in the Womb?[/quote]

I don't know, I'm just trying to interpret the words of the Catechism the best that I can. Maybe the "blood" out of which our Lord was formed out of an egg by the Holy Ghost forming it into a human body and uniting an immortal soul and the Divine Nature of the Son to it. Or maybe the Holy Ghost just took some of Mary's blood and formed it into a human body and united an immortal soul and the Divine Nature of the Son to it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

My guess: when the Council of Trent says "blood," they mean egg, but are reflecting the best scientific knowledge of their time. The lack of scientific knowledge doesn't decrease the the truth of their point, nor does it diminish their infallibility, since they don't have infallibility in the area of science.

Anyway, even taking them literally, it could be that they simply mean "of Mary's bloodline," i.e. of her nature.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1236509' date='Apr 9 2007, 04:46 PM']Jesus would still need a male gene. Mary couldn't provide that.[/quote]

Yes, which is matter created from energy using something like E=MC2 in my theory.

[Seven77]

Parthenogenesis, i heard Fr. Angelus OFM Cap say, has two know cases both female ("twin" of the mother<?>)...

[Anomaly]

Hello. A Woman cannot generate a Y chromosome. The only medical possiblity is having a daughter.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I think it is a grave mistake to try to rely on scientific evidence for issues of faith: science is a profound and fruitful method of inquiry into natural phenomena, but the very nature of science makes it impossible for science to comment on the supernatural, save to disprove claims of the supernatural. A case in point would be those Christians who look to science to :prove" a Young Earth Creationist scenario. Many of them have been caught in fraudulent research, questionable analysis, and even outright fabrication of evidence or outright lies to try to force the evidence that exists to conform to their preferred interpretation.

A splendid case in point is the doctrine of Transubstantiation: to make a long story short, science can only evaluate what Catholic Doctrine would call the "accidental properties" of the Host and the wine, for science is helpless to identify the "spiritual" substance. (Now, I must admit that I do not accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation--I simply use this as an example.)

If one accepts the virgin birth, one should simply accept it as the Mystery that it is. Looking for a scientific explanation would, to my mind, cheapen the Mystery to the point that it is no longer a Mystery at all.