While questioning old theological doctrines and bringing forth new theories, there are, of course, many un-thought of questions and many seeming contradictions. Most of these problems can be solved though if a person is willing to lay aside many age-old suppositions and narrow-minded prejudices. It becomes necessary to remove from ones thinking many of the basic and unscriptural teachings of the church.
As a Christian, one wants to be careful not to disparage anything concerning Christ’s personality or holiness. Yet, if one insists that the Lord of the Jews, Jehovah, is an ET and that Christ is His son, then one must also believe that Jesus Christ is the son of an ET. The following statements may sound sacrilegious, but they are not meant to be.
In speaking of Christ, I should probably repeat here that I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. It is obviously a doctrine created by the Roman Catholic Church about three hundred years after the death of Christ.
I know of three different theories concerning the immaculate conception of Christ. Here, of course, I exclude those theories that say the story is based on lies, or that Mary was not aware of, or did not admit, her past activities.
1. The word used for this theory is parthenogenesis, it is simply the Greek way of saying virgin birth.
This theory simply states that a female body has all the chemicals needed to produce a child by itself. In a blog called "Slate", Melinda Wenner Mayer wrote, "So, while it is possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it's very, very unlikely..." She placed the likelihood of that happening at much less than one in a billion.
Den Poitras in a post called, PARTHENOGENESIS: women’s long-lost ability to self-conceive, on the blog, World Mysteries, wrote, It is said that Buddha's mother conceived her son when is a state of blissful meditation under a banyan tree. Mary conceived Jesus in more or less the same way. It's also been said that Leonardo Divinci, possibly Joan of Ark, ... and scores more geniuses, visionaries and healers throughout history are claimed to have come about this way.
If many of the lower species can, and do, conceive Parthenogenetically, I don't think it's too shocking to assume that humans also can.
In that same post Mr Poitras quotes Dr Raymond Bernard, Some...dermoid cysts, sometimes mistaken by surgeons for tumors, ...really are embryos, ...similar in all respects to the products of gestation, containing bones, hair, teeth, flesh, glands, portions of the scalp, face, eyes, ribs,—–in short, all the organs of the human body—what else could they be but virgin embryos in the process of development?”
Theologians have, ever since the days of Saint Paul, argued that sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. He wrote, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world. Rom. 5:12. Eve was deceived, and so, not at fault, but Adam knew what he was doing, therefore he is to blame. Isn't it reasonable then, to argue that if a child is born to a virgin, that child would not be burdened with all the negative aspects imparted by a sinful human father?
If this theory holds any interest for you, I strongly recommend that you read Mr Poitras's post.
2. The teaching that the church has held for about twenty centuries. The holy spirit came upon the virgin, Mary, and she became pregnant. Mary asked the visiting angel, How can this happen? I am not married! The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God’s power will come over you. So your child will be called the holy Son of God. Luke 1:33-35
That teaching leads us directly into the third theory with which I will continue in my next post.