Jesus Christ's Y Chromosome

Where/whom did it come from, since Mary conceived immaculately?

Is there any possibility or evidence maybe that Mary was either a tetraploid Chimera and thus at least a mosaic genetic hermaphrodite

I suppose the simplest answer from a person of faith might be God works in MYSTERIOUS ways, no?

anyways, I was just wondering; Merry Christmass!

a reply to: Plantagenet

I have always loved to ask this question. Biologically, if the only physical DNA came from Mary, Jesus was a girl. If he presented as a man, then he was a transman. Either that, or they lied and he really was a girl which would have really messed with the whole priest class patriarchy they were all comfortable in.

So only logical conclusions:
- Jesus was a woman.
- Jesus was a transman.
- Mary wasn't really a virgin.

a reply to: Plantagenet

Lost in history. Truly, you need not look into the DNA of Jesus to find the answer you seek. You can find our creator from your armchair with a little help from mother nature.

Without violating T&C (which is quite ridiculous if you ask me) by speaking of naturally occuring organisms that grow on this earth that one can consume... one can witness an array of life changing experiences. These organisms are here to help us learn and grow.

Really? The Only ones? Artificial insemination, ever consider that? And, whos to say god couldnt just have create an Y gene himself?a reply to: Abysha

originally posted by: Abysha

Mary wasn't really a virgin.

Occam's Razor would suggest this right here. And, for the record, this is the prevalent theory in nearly every seminary. Jesus was a charismatic guy with a message. That's the bottom line.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Abysha

Mary wasn't really a virgin.

Occam's Razor would suggest this right here. And, for the record, this is the prevalent theory in nearly every seminary. Jesus was a charismatic guy with a message. That's the bottom line.

I didn't know this was taught in seminaries. Why is that not more accepted among the average Christian?

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Plantagenet

I have always loved to ask this question. Biologically, if the only physical DNA came from Mary, Jesus was a girl. If he presented as a man, then he was a transman. Either that, or they lied and he really was a girl which would have really messed with the whole priest class patriarchy they were all comfortable in.

So only logical conclusions:
- Jesus was a woman.
- Jesus was a transman.
- Mary wasn't really a virgin.

Intriguing! Dunno why I sorta ruled out turkey baster or the likes, 2000ish yrs ago was hardly ancient times afterall

is it possible his Y chromosome was non-human?

a reply to: Abysha

You wrote QUOTE: "I have always loved to ask this question. Biologically, if the only physical DNA came from Mary, Jesus was a girl. If he presented as a man, then he was a transman. Either that, or they lied and he really was a girl which would have really messed with the whole priest class patriarchy they were all comfortable in.

So only logical conclusions:

- Jesus was a woman.
- Jesus was a transman.
- Mary wasn't really a virgin...."

The idea that Miryam ('Mary') of Galilee not being a virgin (Heb. Bethulah) at the time of her conception may account for the fact that in the genealogy of the 1st council approved Greek Gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) is mainly composed of males but also names five women, all of whom were either whores or who had some sexual immorality attached to them (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, Mary) with Mary the last in line - almost emphatically...

What exactly was the author of 'Matthew' trying to tell us?

In the 3rd canonical council approved gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) there is a poem forming part of the Infancy Narrative known as the 'Magnificat' where words placed into the mouth of 'Mary' which include "' for thou hast looked upon the 'humiliation' of thy handmaid..." where the Greek term ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν means to look 'upon the degradation' (or 'humiliation') a word often used in cases of rape (or in cases of an elderly woman's barrenness...or inability to produce a son etc.)

Since the story in 'Luke' seems to portray Miryam of Galilee as a young woman (Heb 'almah' as in Isaiah 7:14) and not a barren 'old maid' the implication that one can only draw from the text is that (surreptituously recorded) she became 'degraded' or 'humiliated' and impregnanted = by rape.

This would seem to fit the sneers placed into the mouth of the scribes when they accuse 'ho Iesous' (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) of being 'born of fornication'

'And they said to him, At least WE were not born of fornication, we know who OUR father is !' which according to the 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('according to John' whoever he was) has the word WE emphasized in the Greek

see John 8:41 εἶπαν αὐτῷ· Ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα· ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν -

So there is an air of sexual immorality surrounding the birth of 'the Messiah' when you perform what is known as a 'close reading' of the text...

File this one under 'Things that make you go hmmmmm.....' !!

Thats what i was implying, yes. a reply to: Plantagenet

originally posted by: Plantagenet

is it possible his Y chromosome was non-human?

Some people think that is the case, and that is why, if Jesus had children, it is so important to be part of his bloodline.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Plantagenet

I have always loved to ask this question. Biologically, if the only physical DNA came from Mary, Jesus was a girl. If he presented as a man, then he was a transman. Either that, or they lied and he really was a girl which would have really messed with the whole priest class patriarchy they were all comfortable in.

So only logical conclusions:
- Jesus was a woman.
- Jesus was a transman.
- Mary wasn't really a virgin.

Or "God/s" might have figured out In-Vitro Fertilization and genetic engineering 1000 years before inventing the Pillar of Cloud aerial transportation system. Always seemed the most likely scenario to me (that or people lying.)

originally posted by: Abysha
I didn't know this was taught in seminaries. Why is that not more accepted among the average Christian?

Excuse me ... but, we live in the year 2015, and fast closing on 2016. This isn't the dark ages, of doctrines bashed into our heads ... even if ISIS and others alike want to return to those dark times in human history.

To even think your thought ... you have to go down a very slippery road.

1. Do you have proof of Jesus existance, beyond "tall tales" of the new testament.
2. Do you have proof of Mary, being a virgin. Beyond "tall tales" of the new testament.
3. Do you have proof of Gods existance, and beyond that ... that good be a "man", weather you want to a add a womb to that or not (womb, as in wo-man).
4. Do you have any parallel real life confirmation, that "virgin" birth is possible?

Now, even if you want to ignore 1-3, and expand on 4. I'd ask you to prove, that Mary was a self replicating "bacteria", because if she was a "human", she'd have to have her egg fertilized. Now, in 2016 we can fertilize mouse's egg with her own cells ... but we also know, the nature of DNA, will cause the product of that to break down quickly.

So, back in those days ... dear Mary, would have to have her egg fertilized with a sperm ... and that means, she wasn't a Virgin. Maybe up until the point of conception, but certainly not after.

So, now we have that done with ... Mary conceived a baby ... period. We can move onto the word "Virgin" in Christian doctrine.

Does the word "Virgin" really mean, what you think it does in the Bible? Hardly, it only means that Mary has not been with a man.

Is God a man?

The answer to that question, is obviously No ... but then, does your "reading" of the Bible suggest that God is some sort of energy burst in the Universe, or maybe the combined mass of energy in the Universe? No. It suggest that "God" has the "form" of a man, while not being a man.

This suggest, that "God" is some sort of a superior race ... that does not register as a "man", but certainly does not "exclude" that race's ability to conceive a baby with a human wo-man. Because the bible is full of Nephilim, or the product between wo-man and angel.

So, we can safely assume that "Jesus" if he existed, was conceived in a normal manner. Only by an individual, who was "not" of the "people" of that area where Mary was from.

So, maybe "Life of Bwian" was right ... and Jesus father was a "Roman", or a "Hellenian". And even if they said "Woman" in "Life of Bwian", it was just the "french" spelling of the letter "R".

According to a history professor in college, the meaning of the word virgin changed over time. To put into the proper concept, it meant that she was unwed at the time of the pregnancy.

This is also backed up by the archaic definition of the word.

www.yourdictionary.com...

So, food for thought. We are applying our modern day definitions to words that had different meanings 2000 years ago.

originally posted by: 5leepingWarrior
Really? The Only ones? Artificial insemination, ever consider that? And, whos to say god couldnt just have create an Y gene himself?a reply to: Abysha

oh of course your comment only gets one star because the only intent of these cynical bashers is to promote the perverted ideas they have in their minds from their perverted practices. im sure they know what i mean. but no.. Jesus wasnt a sex-change 'offender'.

just watch this post get reported. as i intended to do with very skillfully selected wording. but... they get my drift. and theyre still gonna hate that its here in the open. because they prefer to hide when performing their private... 'activities'

With the world being staged up-side-down it would not be so hard for me to believe jesus was a girl

a reply to: Plantagenet

I flagged your thread because to be honest, it's the first time i've heard that angle.
In the book of lies you shouldn't look too deep, or you just may find the rabbit, if you do find him, tell him the tortoise is on his 6.

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: 5leepingWarrior
Really? The Only ones? Artificial insemination, ever consider that? And, whos to say god couldnt just have create an Y gene himself?a reply to: Abysha

oh of course your comment only gets one star because the only intent of these cynical bashers is to promote the perverted ideas they have in their minds from their perverted practices. im sure they know what i mean. but no.. Jesus wasnt a sex-change 'offender'.

Sadder still, I'm the one who starred it. What does that tell you about my "agenda". Jeeze.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Abysha
I didn't know this was taught in seminaries. Why is that not more accepted among the average Christian?

Excuse me ... but, we live in the year 2015, and fast closing on 2016. This isn't the dark ages, of doctrines bashed into our heads ... even if ISIS and others alike want to return to those dark times in human history.

To even think your thought ... you have to go down a very slippery road.

1. Do you have proof of Jesus existance, beyond "tall tales" of the new testament.
2. Do you have proof of Mary, being a virgin. Beyond "tall tales" of the new testament.
3. Do you have proof of Gods existance, and beyond that ... that good be a "man", weather you want to a add a womb to that or not (womb, as in wo-man).
4. Do you have any parallel real life confirmation, that "virgin" birth is possible?

Ok, I think you need to understand the concept of "suspension of disbelief" when participating in mythology you do not believe in. When a Christian wants to discuss the moral implications of Job's horrible stretch in life, I don't respond with "Neither he nor his god ever existed" even though I do not believe it. No, I speak about it as if it were all real.

Just like you would when discussing plot elements in a movie or a book. If your friends were debating who would win if the entire cast of Friends got into a deathmatch, would you say "None of them because they are all fictitious"? No you wouldn't, unless you are just a really bad conversationalist.

My point is, is that, if you are going to chime in on a thread about Christian mythology, you need to do it as a person would when discussing any other literature. With the suspension of your disbelief. Otherwise, you aren't really participating.

In some schools of thought, to be a 'virgin' does not mean that the person has not had sex, but rather the person has had sex without orgasm...or has had sex without 'spilling the cup' or 'breaking the Hermetic Seal'.

These same schools of thought say that for a person to reach Heaven and to reach the level of 'Christ' they must find a partner to engage in sex. Through sex certain energies are created that can not be created on one's own. These energies are needed to become conscious in higher dimensions so to gain the experience/knowledge that resides in those higher dimensions or Heavens.

In times gone by, there were spiritual masters who knew which persons where compatible with each other, once this had been established, the couple (Neophytes) were instructed in special meditations and mantras that were to be performed during the act of sex. This combined sexual energy of the man and woman would then manifest over time and these special 'energies or 'bodies' would become stronger and thus allow the Neophytes to ascend higher in their teachings.

This is where the tradition of 'soul mates' and arranged marriages comes from, also the tradition in some religions of a red dot between the eyes when married, this symbolises the opening of the 'third eye' when a man marries a woman.

In my opinion, Joseph and Mary where Neophytes and practiced this secret and through mediation, prayer and sacred sex they where chosen to be parents to the boy that would become the Christ.

I also believe that Jesus practiced this teaching with his partner Mary Magdalene, he was often seen by the other disciples to kiss her on the lips.

This knowledge was and has been kept secret for a very long time (as with all knowledge, it is open to abuse) many that found out about these teachings called the practitioners heretics, deviants and other impressive words that would describe then as sexual perverts.

Sexual energy is one of, if not the strongest of human energies, when this energy is saved and transmuted instead of wasted (orgasm) then this energy, over time, will allow advancement for the Neophytes on their path.

So, in this respect, I believe that the meaning of a 'virgin' is someone who practices this sacred teaching, building up this sexual energy without releasing or 'wasting' this energy through orgasm.

Sperm is present in the fluid used to lubricate the sexual organs (pre cum) and if this sperm reaches the female egg without the final release of orgasm, this is considered an immaculate conception, or a 'virgin' birth.

The orgasm, 'spilling of the cup' or the breaking of the 'Hermetic Seal' was said to be the original sin and the downfall of man. The temptation to orgasm is so great, so strong that this is the cause of the fall of many an angel...

Is there any greater test than performing sex and when the moment arrives, to abstain from orgasm?

It's said that people want the truth, but it's also said that people can't handle the truth, and when they cant handle this truth they rebel against it, rubbish it and try to discredit its practices...I believe this has been happening for a very long time.

When I was very young, I believed as long as I was good and didn't kill anybody, I would go to heaven. As I grew older I realised (or believe) that to reach Heaven was a lot harder than just being a good person...to gain entrance to the highest Heaven is like studying for a degree, it takes time, effort, study and sacrifice.

I believe these teachings of sacred sex are part of the curriculum that must be studied on the path to Heaven.

Gnobody