The painfully anfractuous contortions undertaken by those who are determined to believe anything but Christianity never cease to amaze me. We have, for example, this from Swedish state TV:
The birth of Jesus, which is celebrated on Christmas Day, occurred without his having a biological father. State owned SVT, however, has solved the mystery of the virgin birth.
Jesus or Virgin Mary may have been transsexual, they reason. Was Jesus born as a girl? SVT asks and believes they have found support for that theory in science.
SVT’s claim is not the Biblical account of the virgin birth, but that Mary became pregnant with Joseph or someone else. But the highly biased, left-wing channel has launched a more gender-modern theory:
A phenomenon known as parthenogenesis. It occurs among algae, fish and frogs and means that an embryo develops without fertilisation. The offspring then becomes genetically identical to the mother – which means that it must have the same gender.
As both the name and pronoun of Jesus are described as male in the scriptures, it can also be concluded that Jesus was a transvestite / transsexual according to the channel.
SVT also theorises about another possibility – that Mary was a man who lived as a woman and with parthenogenesis gave birth to Jesus, who was thus also a man.
How the man Mary got her female genitals and her uterus to breed, carry and give birth to the little boy child Jesus or his brothers, SVT does not explain.
From my monograph “Science, History, and the Birth of Jesus”:
Though genetically the offspring of parthenogenesis are normally female because of the absence of the Y chromosome, Pijnacker and Harbutt (1979) observed “rare impaternate males” among parthenogenic stick insects. (To be “impaternate” means to be “born without a father”.) In support of the possibility of parthenogenic males, the Hutchinson Encyclopedia (1989) notes that the gene determining human maleness occurs on the X as well as on the Y chromosome, even though it is normally not activated in the female, i.e., from the X chromosome.
Certainly, there is a wide gap in complexity between a hu- man mother, on the one hand, and stick insects, lizards, and fish, on the other. Nevertheless, though human parthenogenesis is highly improbable, the data caution us not to call it impossible. In the case of the Christmas story, the Virgin Birth was not a violation of the laws of nature; it was God’s using the laws of nature, which he invented, in ways we never thought possible, to achieve ends we never dared to imagine. In the Virgin Birth, the ends were two-fold: to make himself known to us by taking our nature, and to become our Savior.
Thank you for that salutary and edifying use of “anfractuous”. Regarding the intellectual twisting and turning to avoid, by any means no matter how absurd or insulting, the supernatural element in the Incarnation, and for that matter also the Resurrection, I prefer the word “chicanery” 🙂
Why don’t we just believe ‘God did it’?