Scientific Proof of the Virgin Birth

Answering Protestants ^ | 2 October 2014 | Matthew Olson

[matthewrobertolson]

With the Virgin Birth, you actually have more evidence that it is true rather than untrue.

We have great historical testimony to it, and there is no proof that it did not happen -- obviously. But there is more.

How can it be proven by science? Well, I suppose this depends on your definition of "science". If you refer to that of the exact (quantitative), of course, it could be difficult. But theology, "the highest form of philosophy", does have an answer. And, just as you trust astronomers to tell you about many things beyond earth, you should trust the Church to tell you about God.

Before I can get into that, you must consider something: how did you come into being, and why do you exist? You cannot know much else aside from that you were ordained for some purpose. If you were not around, things would be different, the environment would be changed -- perhaps, this would not just cause some sort of "gap", but it would be destructive, even. You are necessary, to us and to the "Something" (God) from which you spring.

Let us say that the Virgin Birth, too, was necessary for things to properly function. It was ordained from the beginning, as God knew that He would come to reach out to the lost tribes of the house of Israel (Gentiles). The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection were necessary for God's "re"-marriage, this time to the Church, His Bride. (This connects to the Church's teachings on the indissolubility of marriage.) The destroyed Temple and Jewish sacrificial method had to be replaced with a new, universal and eternal system. "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins" (Mark 2:22). If something is truly necessary to proper existence, it comes into being.

Why has this Birth not been replicated, though? It was only needed once, just like you are only needed once. Likewise, there has to be a mystery to it, as there is mystery to you. Uniqueness and mystery pervade.

But St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, also, "According to the Philosopher [Aristotle] (De Gener. Animal. i, ii, iv), in conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter, but by way of agent: and the female alone supplies the matter. Wherefore though the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's conception, it does not follow that due matter was lacking." (Summa Theologiae, TP, Q. 28, A. 1, R. to Ob. 5)

That point is key. Mitochondrial DNA, for example, come exclusively from the mother, and there is also talk of "female sperm". "Female sperm" could, theoretically, develop within a woman, given the right impetus. (Of course, the impetus for normal procreation is male sperm.) The point is, the material necessary for life sufficiently exists within women -- that is evidenced by the fact that the X-chromosome contains far more genetic material than the Y-chromosome. All the material needs is the masculine influence to trigger it, to give it form and shape. Even without the Y-chromosome from a man, one could still be a "XX male", at least. And it is clear that the distinctions and origins of the Y-chromosome are a mystery, anyway [1, 2]. In Mary's exceptional case, this trigger was the Holy Spirit, which poured out abundantly on her and directed her body on what to do (Luke 1:30-35). "...[T]he Divine power, which is infinite, can transmute all matter to any form whatsoever" (Aquinas). This mutation can be rationally explained -- "random mutations" occur frequently.

Is it not ironic that we have confirmed this by reckless science, which has sought to artificially create "test-tube babies" [1, 2] and introduce "transgenderism"? God has drawn straight with our crooked lines, yet again.

Christ's body was not tangled to any imperfect man. This connects to scientific proof of Mary's perfection, too. It has been shown that groups of cells from infants transfer to mothers' brains [1, 2], after traveling through the placenta. Because of this, the Blessed Mother must have been perfect, for she literally had, in purity, the mind of Christ.

Why else must the Theotokos be a virgin? St. Augustine of Hippo wrote, "For it behooved that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of the Church a virgin..." (Of Holy Virginity)

—

Follow me, Answering Protestants, and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.

—

The Crowned Salus Populi Romani

[gop4lyf]

This is from “AnsweringProtestants.” Am I to assume that Catholics believe that protestants do not believe in the Virgin Birth? I have never heard of a Protestant that questioned the Virgin Birth.

[humblegunner]

This connects to scientific proof of Mary's perfection, too.

Oooohhh Kay.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ah yes . . . the same arguments Catholics ridicule when they are made on behalf of literal young earth creationism. 'Cause, you know, that's just plain un-Catholic.

Maybe your liberal pope, bishops, and theologians will jettison the virgin birth next just like they did with Genesis. Then you'll have to claim that you "never believed that nonsense" and that only low-intelligence "rednecks" ever did.

[Tax-chick]

As we understand “science” today, it means, “demonstrable by replicable experiment.” Where’s your replicable experiment on the Virgin Conception?

If we have to use the word “believe,” we’re not talking about science, in the strict sense. I don’t “believe” what astronomers (or biologists, or meteorologists) say about a lot of things that aren’t subject to replicable experiment. I consider their statements and evidence either more or less persuasive, depending on what else is out there, but always subject to reevaluation.

However, I believe in the virgin conception of Jesus with the faith given me by God Himself.

[boatbums]

Christ's body was not tangled to any imperfect man. This connects to scientific proof of Mary's perfection, too. It has been shown that groups of cells from infants transfer to mothers' brains [1, 2], after traveling through the placenta. Because of this, the Blessed Mother must have been perfect, for she literally had, in purity, the mind of Christ.

Sorry...you've proved NOTHING, scientific or otherwise. If Mary had to be "perfect" - and nothing God told us in Scripture says that - in order to bear the sinless human/divine Christ, then Mary's mother would have had to be also. As believers in Christ, we have "the mind of Christ" as it is part of the new birth.

Question: "How can I have the mind of Christ?"

Answer: In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13 and then makes a statement concerning all believers: “We have the mind of Christ.” Having the mind of Christ means sharing the plan, purpose, and perspective of Christ, and it is something that all believers possess.

Having the mind of Christ means we understand God’s plan in the world—to bring glory to Himself, restore creation to its original splendor, and provide salvation for sinners. It means we identify with Christ’s purpose “to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10). It means we share Jesus’ perspective of humility and obedience (Philippians 2:5-8), compassion (Matthew 9:36), and prayerful dependence on God (Luke 5:16).

In the verses leading up to 1 Corinthians 2:16, we note some truths concerning the mind of Christ:

1) The mind of Christ stands in sharp contrast to the wisdom of man (verses 5-6).

2) The mind of Christ involves wisdom from God, once hidden but now revealed (verse 7).

3) The mind of Christ is given to believers through the Spirit of God (verses 10-12).

4) The mind of Christ cannot be understood by those without the Spirit (verse 14).

5) The mind of Christ gives believers discernment in spiritual matters (verse 15).

In order to have the mind of Christ, one must first have saving faith in Christ (John 1:12; 1 John 5:12). After salvation, the believer lives a life under God’s influence. The Holy Spirit indwells and enlightens the believer, infusing him with wisdom—the mind of Christ. The believer bears a responsibility to yield to the Spirit’s leading (Ephesians 4:30) and to allow the Spirit to transform and renew his mind (Romans 12:1-2). http://www.gotquestions.org/mind-of-Christ.html

[boatbums]

However, I believe in the virgin conception of Jesus with the faith given me by God Himself.

Me, too! ☺

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I have never heard of a Protestant that questioned the Virgin Birth.

Those Protestant who believe the Bible have never questioned the Virgin Birth.

What they question is the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ( Mary herself conceived without original sin ).

[Tax-chick]

In any denomination, you can find looney toons who question the most basic facts of Christianity. The Episcopal Church famously had Bishop Spong, but there are nuts attending any kind of congregation.

These people are no more believing “Protestants” than they are believing “Catholics.” They are simply non-believers in Christianity.

[eyeamok]

How can it be proven by science?

We don’t need no stinking science if we have a consensus.

[JT Hatter]

Gad what a painful read.

Twisted, convoluted, tortured logic, if you can even call it that. No scientific proof whatsoever, as if any was needed.

BTW. I’ve not ever heard that Protestants dispute the virgin birth.

[all the best]

If one believes that God created the entire universe, then one has to hold it as child’s play for Him to create a baby or Baby without one little cell contributed by a mere mortal male human.

[TheThirdRuffian]

This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, and I read one of Obama’s speeches one time.

[CynicalBear]

>>Because of this, the Blessed Mother must have been perfect, for she literally had, in purity, the mind of Christ.<<

1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Silly Catholics.

[NYFriend]

This article misuses the word and concept of “proof”, assumes every critical fact, without a basis other than the Bible saying so, and continues St. Thomas’s bad habits in logic and reasoning.

The bits about genetics, the role of sperm, and “female sperm” is essentially unsupported by modern science.

Any chance “virgin” could have meant young and/or unmarried woman? Could a change meaning of the word through 2000 years and three languages have over complicated this?

[Tax-chick]

I read one of Obama’s speeches one time.

Oh, man.

[353FMG]

The Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity deserves only the most undefiled and holy human being as His Mother.

Christians either believe it or they don’t. Basta!

[Mr. K]

", "For it behooved that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of the Church a virgin..." "

This kind of religious gobble-de-gook is ridiculous.

[Tax-chick]

Any chance “virgin” could have meant young and/or unmarried woman?

It could have, and sometimes did, linguistically. However, since the earliest years of Christianity, it has been understood that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the son of Mary, with no human father.

[matthewrobertolson]

And I feel it is necessary for me to point out that the Septuagint (Greek OT), which actually predates the Tanakh (used now for Hebrew OT), makes the virginity of Mary more clear.

See this, also:

" Whereas “almah” is translated in the KJV as “virgin” and this rendering is supported from the Greek Septuagint translation, Jewish revisers and naturalistic textual critics prefer to render “almah” as “young woman,” hoping to undercut the prophetic value of the passage. They claim that if Isaiah were really desiring to prophesy that a virgin would conceive, that he would have used the Hebrew word “bethulah”, which is claimed as a more proper word for “virgin”…“almah” is in fact a more proper term to denote virginity in Hebrew. Further, its translation by early Jewish scholars into the Greek Septuagint demonstrates that the idea of virginity was understood to be conveyed in Isaiah 7:14 and that in pre-Christian Judaism, there was no problem identifying the “almah” of Isaiah 7:14 as being virginal in her conception."