"Christianity, A Journey From Facts To Fiction." by Mirza Tahir Ahmad
The ‘Father-Son’ relationship between
God and Jesus Christ is central to Christianity. Let us first try to understand
what is the meaning of being a literal son. When we concentrate on the meaning
of being a literal son to a literal father, things begin to appear which force
us to revise our opinion of Jesus’ ‘sonship’. What is a son? During the period
when science had not yet developed and discovered how a child is born, this
question could only be vaguely answered. Ancient people thought it quite
possible for God to have a son through human birth. It was a belief prevalent in
almost all pagan societies in different parts of the world. Greek mythology
abounds with such tales and Hindu mythology does not lag far behind either. For
the so-called gods to have sons and daughters, as many as they pleased, was in
fact never seriously challenged by human reason. But now science has developed
to a stage where the process of human birth has been described in greater detail
than ever before. This issue has become very complicated and those who still
believe that literal sons and daughters can be born to God have very serious
problems to resolve and some very difficult questions to answer.
First of all, let me remind you that
the mother and father participate equally in producing a child. The cells of
human beings contain 46 chromosomes, which carry the genes or character bearing
threads of life. The ovum of a human mother possesses only 23 of the 46
chromosomes, which is half the number found in each man and woman. When the
mother’s ovum is ready and available for insemination, the other half of the
chromosomes which it lacks, is provided by the male sperm, which then enters and
fertilizes it. This is the design of God, otherwise, the number of chromosomes
would begin to double with every generation. As a result the second generation
would have 92 chromosomes; humans would soon be transformed into giants and the
entire process of growth would run amok. God has so beautifully planned and
designed the phenomenon of the survival of species that at productive levels of
regenerative cells, chromosomes are halved in number. The mother’s ovum contains
23 chromosomes and so does the father’s sperm. As such, one can reasonably
expect half the characters bearing genes of the child to be provided by the
female and half by the male partner. This is the meaning of a literal son. There
is no other definition of being a literal son which can be ascribed to any human
birth. There are variations in the methodology of course, but there are no
exceptions to the rules and principles just explained.
Focusing our attention on the birth of
Jesus, let us build a scenario about what might have happened in his case. The
first possibility, which can be scientifically considered, is that Mary’s
unfertilized ovum provided the 23 chromosomes as the mother’s share in the
forming of the embryo. That being so, the question would arise as to how the
ovum was fertilized and where did the remaining 23 essential chromosomes come
from? It is impossible to suggest that Jesus’ cells had only 23 chromosomes. No
human child can be born alive with even 45 chromosomes. Even if a human being
was deprived of a single chromosome out of the 46 necessary for the making of
all human beings, the result would be something chaotic, if there was anything
at all. Scientifically, Mary could not provide the 46 chromosomes alone, 23 had
to come from somewhere else.
If God is the father then that
presents several options. One; God also has the same chromosomes that humans
have, and these must have been transferred somehow to the uterus of Mary. That
is unbelievable and unacceptable; if God has the chromosomes of human beings it
means he is no longer God. So as a consequence of belief in Jesus as the literal
‘Son’ of God, even the divinity of the Father is jeopardised.
The second possibility is that God
created the extra chromosomes as a supernatural phenomenon of creation. In other
words, they did not actually belong to the person of God, but were created
miraculously. This would automatically lead us to reject Jesus’ relationship to
God as one of child and father, and would result in the all embracing
relationship of the Universe to God, that is, the relationship of every created
being to its Creator.
Evidently therefore, literal sonship of
God is impossible because a literal son must have half the character of his
father and half the character of his mother. So another problem surfaces, the
son would be half man and half god. But those who believe in the literal
sonship, claim and emphasise that Christ was a perfect man and a perfect
god.
If the chromosomes were half the
required number then we are not left with any problem, no child would be born
anyway. Suppose it did happen, that child would only be half a man. Not to
mention the missing twenty-three full chromosomes, even a single defective gene
within one chromosome can play havoc with a child born with such a congenital
defect. He could be blind, limbless, deaf and dumb. The dangers attendant to
such a mishap are unlimited. One should be realistic; it is impossible to
conceive God as possessing any chromosomes, human or otherwise.
Therefore, with the personal physical
contribution of God having been ruled out, if a son were born to Mary with only
the human character bearing genes possessed by her ovum, whatever the outcome,
he would certainly not be the ‘Son’ of God. At best you can describe that freak
of nature as half a man and no more. If the reproductive organs of Mary were
like any other female and still the ovum were to fertilize somehow by itself,
the maximum one can expect is the creation of something with only half the human
characters. It is abominable to call that something the ‘Son’ of God.
So how was Christ born? We understand
that research on the subject of single mother birth without the participation of
a male is being carried out in many advanced countries of the world. But so far
human knowledge is only at a stage where scientific research has not yet
advanced to such a level where positive irrefutable evidence of virgin births in
human beings can be produced. However, all sorts of possibilities remain
open.
At lower orders of life two phenomena
are scientifically well established: Parthenogenesis and Hermaphroditism. As
such, the miraculous birth of Jesus, to Mary, can be understood to belong to
some similar natural but very rare phenomenon, the peripheries of which are not
yet fully fathomed by man.
Here follow brief descriptions of the
phenomena of Parthenogenesis and Hermaphroditism. Readers interested in a more
scientific treatment of the subject matter, based upon current understanding,
may refer to Appendix II.
This is the asexual development of a
female ovum into an individual, without the aid of a male agent. It is observed
among many lower forms of life such as aphids and also fish. There is also
evidence that parthenogenesis can be a successful strategy among lizards living
under low and unpredictable rainfall conditions. In laboratory conditions, mice
and rabbit embryos have been developed parthenogenetically to a stage equivalent
to halfway through pregnancy, but have then been aborted. In recent study, human
embryos could be activated occasionally by parthenogenesis using calcium
ionophore as a catalyst. Such research raises the prospect that some early human
pregnancy losses may have involved the parthenogenetic activation of the embryo.
This term applies when organs of both
sexes are present within a single female and the chromosomes show both male and
female characters aligned side by side. Laboratory tests have revealed cases
such as that of a hermaphrodite rabbit which, at one stage, served several
females and sired more than 250 young of both sexes, while at another stage,
became pregnant in isolation and gave birth to seven healthy young of both
sexes. When autopsied, it showed two functional ovaries and two infertile testes
while in a pregnant condition. Recent studies suggest that such a phenomenon is
possible, rarely, among humans also.
There are many other problems with the
Christian understanding of Jesus, his nature and his relationship with God. From
further critical and analytical study of Christian doctrine, what emerges is
that there is a ‘Son of God’, who possesses the characteristics of a perfect man
and also that of a perfect god. However, remember that even according to the
Christian doctrine the Father is not exactly like the ‘Son’. The Father God, is
a perfect God and not a perfect man, while the ‘Son’ is both a perfect man and a
perfect god. In that case these are two separate personalities with different
characteristics.
It should be realised that these
characteristics are not transferable. There are characters in certain substances
which are transferable. For instance, water can become snow and also vapour,
without causing a change in the substance or composition of water. But the sort
of differences in the characteristics of God and Christ, where certain
characteristics are added to one of them, are irreconcilable. It is not possible
for one of them to go through this transformation and still remain
indistinguishable from the other. That, again, is a problem and a serious one
for that matter, whether Jesus Christ was a perfect god as well as a perfect
man. If he was, then he was surely different from the Father who was never a
perfect man; not even an imperfect one. What type of relationship was this? Was
the ‘Son’ greater than the Father? If this additional character did not make the
‘Son’ greater then it must have been a defect. In that case a defective ‘Son
God’ is not only against the claims of Christianity, but is also against the
universal understanding of God. How, therefore, could anyone comprehend the
paradoxical tenet of Christianity which would have us believe that ‘One in
Three’ and ‘Three in One’ are the same thing, with no difference at all. This
can only happen when the very foundation of a belief is raised, not on a factual
base, but merely on myth.
Yet another problem to be resolved is
this: If Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ as a consequence of his birth from Mary’s
womb, then what was his position before that? If he was eternally the ‘Son’,
without having been born of Mary, why was it necessary to give birth to him in a
human form? If it was necessary, then the quality of Son was not eternal; it
only became an added characteristic after he was given birth and it disappeared
when he rejected the body and returned to heaven. So there are many complexities
rising out of a belief which common sense rejects. I invite you again to accept
a far more respectable and realistic scenario; that of believing the birth of
Jesus Christ to be a special creation brought about by God, having activated
some hidden laws of nature. Jesus was the metaphorical son of God, loved by Him
in a special way; but a human being all the same. His ‘Son’ status was attached
to his character some three hundred years later, to allow his legend to live
on—this will be discussed later.
No comments:
Post a Comment