₦airaland Forum

Ayomivic: Do the athiests fear babaalawo?

plaetton: Excellent. I just want to add to it that despite our many hiccups along the way, humankind has actually done a much better job of evolving and moulding our civilization than god(biblical god) ever did, especially in areas of justice,fundamental human rights, tolerance and peaceful co-existence, science and medicine,etc.
For example, the biblical god could not even find a cure for such diseases as leprosy. His solution was to condemn them as unclean and put them in concentration camps.
Infact, by todays human standards, the biblical god would be tried for crimes against humanity.
We have come a long way. No wonder the biblical god was so terrified that man had eaten from the tree of knowledge. Obviously, knowledge diminishes god.

emöfine2: And this is what I'm slightly at odds with. “He” allowed for us to be created faulty yet commands us to be faultless and that “he” is the convenient solution to our inbuilt imperfection.

logicboy: This is the stupidity of many Nigerian people. A scientifically proven illness- clinical depression exists but due to their willful ignorance and strong-head to remain in the suffer and smile culture in Nigeria, they say it is for the week.

Many people have committed suicide or murder in Nigeria due to depression and frustration with their lives. People like Omopastor would ignore the motives for those suicides and murders by just chalking it up to "they were sinners or agents of the devil"

ea7: the callotti I know doesn't actually type coherent sentences, makes blokos jokes and is actually funny. You are to serious, I'll call you not-callotti

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ( 8 ) (9) (of 47 pages)

ea7: arrgh!!. Who are you and what have you done with calloti!!!?

Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Yes—but it's very, very, very, very unlikely.

By Melinda Wenner Moyer|Updated Friday, Dec. 21, 2007, at 6:24 PM ET

19
Is it possible for a virgin to give birth? During the holidays, Christians celebrate the birth of a human baby to his virginal mother. We know that female wasps, fish, birds, and lizards can produce healthy offspring without having sex, but what about people? Are natural human virgin births possible?

Yes, in theory. However, a number of rare events would have to occur in close succession, and the chances of these all happening in real life are virtually zero. For a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA. That's the easy part: These two events occur in the eggs or egg precursor cells of one out of every few thousand women. But the egg would also need to be carrying at least two specific genetic deletions to produce a viable offspring.

Advertisement

An egg will only start dividing once it senses a spike in cellular calcium. This normally occurs as a result of a sperm's entry during fertilization. But if the egg happens to experience a spontaneous calcium spike, it will start reacting as if it's been fertilized. A defective sperm that lacks DNA can produce a spurious calcium spike. In the lab, scientists can coax unfertilized eggs into beginning the post-fertilization process by simply injecting them with calcium.

Once fertilization—or faux fertilization—occurs, an egg can complete the final stage of a cell division known as meiosis II, during which it loses half of its genetic material to make room for the sperm's DNA. But if there's no sperm, each half of the divided egg cell will end up short, and both will die. In order for our virgin birth to proceed, the faux-fertilized egg must, therefore, not complete meiosis.

Both of these events—the calcium spike and the division mistake—could occur as the result of random dysfunctions or genetic defects. Assuming they do, the egg cell may then begin the process of "parthenogenesis," or virginal development. When this happens to an egg-precursor cell, it can give rise to a tumor made up of many different types of tissue—liver, teeth, eye, and hair, for example.

Parthenogenesis in humans never produces viable embryos, though, because unfertilized eggs lack specific instructions about gene expression from the sperm. In general, our cells have two functional copies of each gene—one inherited from the mother and one from the father. For some genes, however, only one copy is ever used, while the other remains dormant. Some of the signals for which copies should be turned off come from the sperm cell. So, if there's no sperm, certain genes will be overexpressed, and the "embryo" will die when it is only about five days old.

There's a way around this problem, too. By eliminating a pair of maternal genes, a Japanese team was able to create, via parthenogenesis, a viable baby mouse that was seemingly unaffected by its lack of paternal imprinting. Although the scientists engineered these changes in the lab, there's at least a theoretical possibility that this could happen spontaneously via random gene deletions.

So, while it's possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it's very, very unlikely: These two genetic deletions might each have a one in 1 billion chance of occurring, and that's not counting the calcium spike and division problem required to initiate parthenogenesis in the first place.

Bonus Explainer: Are there any case reports of virgin births in the medical literature? Sort of. According to a 1995 report in the journal Nature Genetics, a mother brought her infant boy to the doctor after noticing that his head was developing abnormally. When doctors analyzed his blood, they found something truly bizarre: Despite his anatomically male features, the boy's blood cells were entirely female, consisting only of genetic material from his mother. Some of his other cells—such as those found in his urine—were normal, consisting of a combination of both maternal and paternal DNA. No one knows exactly how this occurred, but the best guess is that immediately after being fertilized, one of his mother's eggs fused with a neighboring unfertilized egg that was dividing parthogenetically. This gave rise to a boy who was considered half-parthenogenetic, since approximately half of his cells were derived from a "faux" conception, containing no remnants of his father's DNA.

Got a question about today's news?

Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

Obviously it is hard for any critical thinker to take everything in the 4 Gospels literally at face value since, besides the many internal contradictions between them, it is generally conceded by scholars that the Gospels are not to be meant to be read as �pure history� anyway but were meant to be �read in the Churches� as haggadic (i.e. legendary) midrashic stories (based on �Messianic� OT verses) set out to prove �that Iesous is the Christos� to increase faith in the minds of �believers�.

See for example the blatant "give away" in the Gospel of John 20:31

�These things were written so that you might believe that Iesous is the Christos and by believing you might have life in his name�� not exactly the stuff of historical impartiality�!

Still, there are a number of intriguing historical echoes of (distorted) facts buried within all this Midrashic tapestry about R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (�Jeeezuzz�) which sometimes oddly float up to the surface often where you least expect to find them.

One of these occurs in the Gospel of John (again!) with �Iesous� having a confrontation with some group (Saduccees or Pharisees?, it is not specified but they seem to be making shall we say hints about �Iesous� parentage somewhere in here: see John 8:39-42

The conversation is clearly not a literal event, but a combination of theological discussion heavily edited and made into a literary poem of sorts, but buried deep within the gist of the conversation is the odd phrase:

�We were not born of Fornication: [at least] we KNOW who OUR father is...�
(lit. "WE (emphatic in the Greek: HUMEIS) are not bastards: we only have one father" !!!!!!

Ouch.

That�s hitting a little below the belt, even for Pharisees and Sadduccees.

Some pious Chrisitan scribe back in the 3rd century AD seems to have taken it into his head to add in the margin the additional words [�even God�] kind of out of place, right next to their accusation, probably to take the sharper edge of the obvious insult out of the discussion. They are talking about Abraham and his seed, not "Ho Theos" ("God", so the addition is OUT OF CONTEXT.

In other words to make it look like the original conversation was not about �Jeezuz� being a Mamzer,( i.e.born of illicit union, or a �bastard�.

Apparently �Iesous" in the narrative is portrated as having not liking this diatribe very much, according to the author of John�s Gospel (whoever he was), for in it he retorts,

�Yes� you are the spawn of your own Father the Devil�.�

Not exactly the sweet parable of a harmless little rebbe telling harmless little stories.

Whereas his �accusers� were clearly hurling a more personal insult at �Jesus�, he hurls back a more or less class-oriented �collective insult� at the priesthood in general, claiming that the lot of them were sons of vipers.

It could be that they were making general racist comments about Galileans in general (of mixed blood e.g. Assyrians and Greeks who were re-located into the area and mixed with the local Phoencian-Israelites: in fact, The Galilee derives from the Hebrew phrase HA GILGAL HA GOYIM ("circle of Gentiles..." so perhaps theses Sadduccees/Pharisees were actually meant to be saying something like "We in JUDAEA know we are descended from Abraham, but god-knows where YOU PEOPLE come from!!" etc.) but the text is curiously ambiguous about the "fornication" issue and seems, rather, shall we say, personal.

But what are we to make of these slanderous accusations?

Was the man "Iesous" truly illegitimate (Heb. MAMZER: "born of an illicit union" as the Talmud would later suggest, the offspring of a Roman Soldier named Joseph ben Pantera whose grave in Syria (he died around AD 25 and had been posted in the Galilee between BC 12 to AD 6) was found recently?

(Or does the Talmud speak of another �Yeshu�, since there were so many Messiah�s running around at the time organizing armed revolts against Rome�including JUDAH THE GALILEAN)

Is the fact that �Iesous� may have been illegitimate the reason why he seemed to �fixated� on a �Father Figure� image, as Freud was so fond of pointing out , since according to Freud�s logic, �Jesus may have had no biological father� to call his own and so used the word ABBA to pray (lit. �Daddy!�) as a father-substitute�.?

It gets WORSE.

In Matthew's version of the lineage of the Messiah (Christ) �Iesous� was descended from a list of male ancestors, oddly, with 5 females mentioned along with the men�very odd in a Jewish geneaology.

The issue is highly curious to some who have studied this text closely, because ALL FIVE OF THE WOMEN MENTIONED IN MATTHEW�S GOSPEL HAVE ISSUES OF SEXUAL PROMISCUITY CONNECTED WITH EACH ONE OF THEM !!

The five women included were: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary.

l. Tamar: Genesis 38:6-30

Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah. A childless widow, she was given to her brother-in-law after her husband's death. Such a union was later called a Leverite marriage (Deut 25:5-6).

Tamar's brother-in-law refused to have proper intercourse with her and for this �Elohim killed him�.

Yehudah/Judah would not give Tamar to any of his other sons soTamar disguised herself as a harlot and seduced Judah, became pregnant with his son Perez.

Rahab: Joshua 2:1-24 (which Matthew spells RACHAB for some reason)

Rahab was a prostitute who lived in Jericho. She hid the spies of Joshua. Because of this, the Israelites spared her life when they conquered Jericho. She later became the wife of Salmon, and the mother of Boaz.

Rahab's faith, despite her occupation as a professional LovePeddler, was later commended by the writer of Heb 11:30-31.

Ruth: Ruth 1:1-4:22

Ruth was a Moabitess, an enemy of Israel (�no Moabite shall ever enter into the Congregation of Israel, not even beyond the 10th generation! . but had married a Judaean named Mahlon. . Her mother-in-law, Naomi, lived in Moab, and the language used to describe their relationship bordered on what we would call �Lesbian�.

Ruth, the Moabitess, was later married to Boaz, one of Naomi's relatives.

The (Gentile) Moabetess Ruth later became the mother of Obed, the grandfather of David.

Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11:1-27
Bathsheba was the Jebusite Princess Bath-Shebiti (�Daughter of the 7 gods of Jebus�) and wife of Uriah the Hittite (the Jebusites and Hititites were blood related and inter-married) , a soldier in the professional standing Hittite (i.e. foreign) army of David, who allegedly seduced her on a rooftop.

When David discovered Bathsheba (Bath-Shebiti) was pregnant, sent Uriah back into battle, with orders that Uriah should be slain, so that David could marry Bathsheba who later became the mother of Jedidiah nicknamed "Solomon" (peaceful).

The fifth and last in the long line of promiscuous Females in the Genealogy is Miryam/Mary, the very pregnant bride to be of Joseph, and mother of said �Iesous".

One could make a case that even though there was sexual misconduct going on in all of these cases, eventually this women gave birth to heroes or famous men in some form, so it seems to be the point of the writer to suggest that even if Mary was pregnant, there is ample history to show that �God�s Plan of Salvation� can still be worked out�in other words, �he works in mysterious ways, and not to judge by appearances...�

As Professor Barrett used to ask us: �What exactly is the writer of Matthew trying to tell us?�


This also begs the Question: If Jesus has no earthly father why do BOTH his genealogies trace their bloodlines through Joseph?

Arguments in favour of �legal� genealogy fall on their face when the prophecies about the Messiah BEING OF THE SEED OF DAVID do not make any mention of legalisms.

The Question is: Did the Church make up the VIRGIN BIRTH story out of Isaiah 7:14 in order to cover up some of these inconsistencies and make a "physical negative" into a "spiritual positive" for the man they proclaimed as Messiah, such as they did with the way he died?

At any rate, the Hebrew word ALMAH in Isaiah 7:14 does NOT mean VIRGIN anyway:

ALMAH merely means �a young woman of marriageable age.�

It was the Greek translation (the LXX Septuaginta) which chose the word PARTHENOS (�virgin� or �young girl�) which could be construed either way. But the phrase in Isaiah was NOT messianic originally. It only grew that way over time (read the Dead Sea Scrolls for a taste of what they did with certain passages in the Hebrew Bible!)

Why did both Matthew and Luke go to such obscene lengths to twist the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 into something more like the birth of a pagan god like Hercules or even Alexander the Great who was also thought to have been descended from the gods, and �partheno-theodikos� i.e. �a god born of a virgin�?

Wait�there�s more�!

Here's something more to think about ref: those pesky Matthean and Lukan Genealogies that "Don�t Quite Match Each Other�"

As most thinking �Christians� must know by now, the two �genealogies� of �Iesous� in the gospels of Matthew and Luke SIMPLY DO NOT MATCH each other very closely.

See Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke chapter 3:1-22

The author of Luke (whoever he was) wants to trace the ancestry of �Iesous� back to �Adam� (apparently to make him more Universal for his Gentile Audience) and names his paternal grandfather as Heli (or Eli).

Matthew�s version is only interested in tracing his �ancestry� in convoluted groups of 14 (the gemmatrial numerological code for the Messiah derived from the name in Hebrew for DVD or David = Daled = 4, Vav = 6, Daled = 4).

Moreover in order to make all those tidy little near groups of 14, the writer of �Matthew� has to eliminate at least four kings from his list (Matthew�s king lists lacks a King sitting on the Throne of Israel between BC 680 and BC 630), namely Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, the last was cursed never to have any physical descendants to sit upon the throne of David: (see Jeremiah 36:30) !!

In the Matthean version, the paternal grandfather of �Iesous who is called Christos� is Yakkov (Jacob).

So which is it, is Joseph�s father Heli or Yakkov? And who cares anyway since �Iesous� was not even supposed to be related to him by blood anyway?

And no, these two contradictory genealogies are not one for Mary and one for Joseph either because any tracing back to David by bloodline would have to go through the male lineages.

Moreover to make all those tidy little near groups of 14, the writer of �Matthew� has to eliminate at least four kings from his list (Matthew�s king lists lacks a King sitting on the Throne of Israel between BC 680 and BC 630), namely Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, the last was cursed never to have any physical descendants to sit upon the throne of David: (see Jeremiah 36:30)

The Question is:

Did the Church make up the VIRGIN BIRTH story out of Isaiah 7:14 in order to cover up some of these scndalous accusations of the 2nd centiry rebbes and other inherent inconsistencies, and somehow turn their Messiah-Rabbi into the kind of god the pagans could revere?

Embracing the Bastard Jesus
By Irene Monroe


One of my Sunday school teens, Jamal, asked me several Advent seasons ago if the church was going to hear the usual Christmas sermon about baby Jesus being born in a manger. Because if so, as he pointedly said to me, “I ain't feeling it, Rev.”

I have been bothered every Christmas by our culture's egregious form of commercialism that robs the season of its spiritual meaning – as well as our anemic recognition of other religious holidays like Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, and the celebration of the winter solstice. And at that moment, I was both bothered and challenged by the teen's remark.

Jamal was tired of hearing the same story about the same cast of characters in the Nativity narrative that rendered the same ending, and wanted to know, since he had to attend service on that day: What did Jesus' birth have to do with him and his family?

Born of a “virgin” – in Mary's day that meant a young teenage girl – Mary was pregnant before marriage with Jesus. In the economically distressed area of the Bronx where I was first sent as a pastor, the church I served was just across the street from a housing project where there were many baby Jesus stories of young black mothers like Mary.
Born of a “virgin” – in Mary's day that meant a young teenage girl – Mary was pregnant before marriage with Jesus. In the economically distressed area of the Bronx where I was first sent as a pastor, the church I served was just across the street from a housing project where there were many baby Jesus stories of young black mothers like Mary. However, society immediately stigmatizes these unwed mothers as promiscuous and wild. At the birth of their children, society marginalizes, castigates and unabashedly calls and treats them as bastards. And as a pejorative epithet, both mother and child are made to experience a shared guilt and shame.

Similarly, viewed as morally reprehensible by both Jewish social and cultural laws, Mary's pregnancy posed problems. Betrothed to Joseph, Mary's commitment of marriage was more binding than an engagement, and could only be severed by a divorce. However, according to Jewish custom, if a betrothed woman became pregnant and not by the man she was betrothed to, she was scornfully viewed as an adulteress, and according to Jewish Law, could be executed.

According to the views of medieval scholar Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1275), if Mary was an adulteress that made Jesus an illegitimate child. In his magnum opus The Summa Theologica , Aquinas wrote, “I answer that, Children are of four conditions. Some are natural and legitimate, for instance those who are born of a true and lawful marriage; some are natural and illegitimate, as those who are born of fornication; some are legitimate and not natural, as adopted children; some are neither legitimate nor natural; such are those born of adultery or incest, for these are born not only against the positive law, but against the express natural law. Hence we must grant that some children are illegitimate. . . Although those who are born of an unlawful intercourse are born according to the nature common to man and all animals, they are born contrary to the law of nature which is proper to man: since fornication, adultery, and the like are contrary tot he law of nature. Hence the like are not legitimate by any law.”

While Mary's pregnancy is lauded in Christian tradition as immaculate and the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit of God, in many feminist Christian circles Mary's pregnancy raises a suspicious eye. These communities question society's attitudes then – and now – about unwed mothers having children outside of the institution of marriage.

According to Jewish Law, these children of unwed mothers are called mamzerim (Hebrew for bastards), and are subject to a variety of restrictions and discriminations; thus, do not share the privileges of God's children. For example, In the Jewish text Deuteronomy 23:2 it states, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

And because Mary's pregnancy came at a time when she was an unwed woman, Jesus' birth came at a difficult time along the human timeline. As an adult, Jesus was viewed as a religious threat to conservative Jews because of his iconoclastic views and practice of Jewish Law, and viewed as a political threat to the Roman government simply because he was a Jew. However, as an infant, Jesus being born in the non-traditional Jewish family was also about the struggle for human acceptance.

Similarly, in my congregation, Jamal was born during a difficult time along the human timeline. Born as a black male into a society where the police profile and hunt black males as if on an urban expedition, Jamal was also born into a non-traditional family.

Called and treated as a bastard by society because his mother gave birth to him while a teenager, Jamal bears the sins not of his mother, but instead he bears the sins of society's treatment of him and his mother as an illegitimate family.

Acceptance of Mary's pregnancy as an unwed mother upholds the ethos that no child, no matter what his or her station in life might be, should be left behind. And it also symbolizes that those relegated to the fringes of society – the bastards – are the very ones that Jesus' birth symbolizes and stands for.
In many feminist Christian circles, an acceptance of Mary's pregnancy is not only the exaltation of the lowly, but it is also the exaltation of the different and diverse human configurations of the beauty of God's family. Acceptance of Mary's pregnancy as an unwed mother upholds the ethos that no child, no matter what his or her station in life might be, should be left behind. And it also symbolizes that those relegated to the fringes of society – the bastards – are the very ones that Jesus' birth symbolizes and stands for.



Although Christmas is mostly thought of in terms of feasting and celebrating, Jesus' birth is about the celebration of all families. Similarly, when I think of the birth of Jesus, one of the themes that looms large for me is homelessness, and how that social issue connects to the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Why homelessness? Because many of us, myself included, do not really have a home to go to where we can sit at the family table and be fully out. Or, if out, we are not fully accepted, because we are the bastards – the illegitimate ones – in our families. As with Mary and Joseph during the time of Jesus' birth, we travel from inn to inn to find there is no room.

In Luke 2:6-7 it states, “While they were there the time came for [Mary] to have her baby, and she gave birth to a son – her firstborn. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Our birth, as individuals and as a LGBT movement, mirrors that of Jesus. It comes at a time when there is neither room nor tolerance for us at a difficult time along the human timeline. As we celebrate this holiday season, let us enjoy our time.

Let us make home, if not with biological families, then certainly with beloved friends.

And let this season serve as a marker that invites us to find home for the holidays and beyond.



The Rev. Irene Monroe writes a regular online column, Queer Take , for The Witness . She may be reached by email at revimonroe@earthlink.net .

18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united (Matthew 1).

Pregnancy occurs when the fertilised egg is implanted. It is not a sin for a woman to act as a surrogate mother by receiving a fertilised egg, so long as the egg and the sperm are from a married couple. It is fornication for an egg and a sperm from a non married couple to be united. This has an interesting application to fertilisation clinics today. If a married woman is infertile then she can use another woman's womb, but not another woman's egg, and she must use her husband's sperm.

Did the Holy Spirit commit adultery with the virgin Mary?

This was a cheeky question from one of our readers. But it is nonetheless valid. God cannot break his own Justice, for the scripture says:

4 The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he (Deuteronomy 32).

So that answers that. Plainly God cannot sanction or participate in adultery. So how could Mary become pregnant by some entity other than Joseph without adultery being committed. Now, it is no good saying, oh God is not bound by the Law of Moses. God is not a Hypocrite like human religious leaders, or human administrators. He will not sentence us to death if we commit adultery and then merrily go and commit it himself through his wife the holy spirit. So plainly he managed to impregnate Mary without committing adultery. But how could he do this?

Well adultery is the defiling of a married (or engaged) woman with semen other than that of her intended or of her husband. Now all of us human males produce our own unique semen. But God created all of our semen, and is perfectly capable of replicating the semen of Joseph. So we can deduce that God impregnated Mary with the semen of Joseph (she was not allowed any other type!) So Jesus, at conception, was truly a son of Mary and of Joseph and so was truly a son of David..

8 Remember that Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead and was of David's seed, according to the good news I preach (2Timothy2).

Since he was a son of David at conception, he was also a son of Adam at that time. He was also adamic, he was born in sin. For David, speaking as Jesus, declared...

5 Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, And in sin my mother conceived me (Psalm 51),

So the conception was precisely what would have occurred had Joseph actually slept with Mary. Then at some future point God must have zapped the genes in the embryo to make them non adamic, but ageing nonetheless, so that Jesus would look like any other human of the time. In fact precisely like a son of Mary and Joseph. God would not have to have changed very much genetic material to make Jesus non adamic. Presumably he only needed to introduce some base pairs that Adam and Eve did not have. We have some idea how to do that today as well. But when precisely did God zap this embryo's genes to make it non adamic?

21 Now when 8 days came to the full for circumcising him, his name was also called Jesus, the name called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb (Luke 2).

Now God cannot name the child until the child is his, i.e. until after he has zapped its genes so as to make the child no longer a son of Adam. Actually God might have made the child not a son of Adam genetically but nonetheless a son of David genetically, if David had some Genes that Adam and Eve did not have, say from pre-adamics. God could presumably have replaced Adamic components with pre-adamic components, so the Jesus essentially became pre-adamic. This might be the way in which non adamic humans are made. It sill might have been possible for Jesus to be a son of David, if none of David's DNA was removed when Adam's DNA (that was not present in David) was removed. So our best guess at this time is that God left all of David's DNA intact in Jesus, but replaced any DNA from Adam or from Eve that was not found in David by a pre-adamic equivalent.

At any rate once the embryo was implanted in the womb, it was named by God, so its genes must have been zapped. In fact it would make sense if God zapped the genes of the fertilised egg just before the first cell division, immediately after conception and before pregnancy (implantation). In this way he would just be using the fertilised egg as a vehicle to create a non adamic son of David.

God is merely using an Adamic vehicle to create a non adamic son. He of course has the power to instantly materialise such a being at any age you like, but he chose the more pedantic and less dramatic method of production for Jesus. This was also the way he created Adam in the first place, from pre adamic parents. For if Jesus was the last Adam in some sense, then Adam was the first Jesus in that sense.

18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united (Matthew 1).

Pregnancy occurs when the fertilised egg is implanted. It is not a sin for a woman to act as a surrogate mother by receiving a fertilised egg, so long as the egg and the sperm are from a married couple. It is fornication for an egg and a sperm from a non married couple to be united. This has an interesting application to fertilisation clinics today. If a married woman is infertile then she can use another woman's womb, but not another woman's egg, and she must use her husband's sperm.

musKeeto: Hallo madam.. first time your post no get insult or heerrressy.. wetin happen?


Oh my bad, u forgot, back to type
Exactly my sentiments..

Does being a Christian, while giving one 'hope' of salvation and a ticket to heaven, relieve one of earthly duties and roles that better the society?

logicboy: Na by that one?