Is considering God to be the biological father of Jesus the biggest flaw in Christianity doctrine?

Is considering God to be the biological father of Jesus the biggest flaw in Christianity doctrine?

Because it's against God's attributes.
Believing that Jesus was the biological son of God means there was semen and intercourse and that violates the holiness of God.


Most Helpful Girl

  • Nah. The idea that Jesus dying was even necessary is the biggest flaw...

    Couldn't God have just decided to forgive mankind and, like, I dunno, appear with a new set of rules that made sense and people would be like "ok cool, we can do that"? I grew up in the church and never understood the whole "gotta have a virgin give birth to my son who is somehow 100% god but 100% human and then have him preach for a while and then be brutally executed before I can forgive people for sinning" thing. I mean, cool of him to come and preach to people in human form about loving each other and shit, but the whole dying on the cross to save us from our sin things is nonsense.

    • Good opinion, thank you.

Most Helpful Guy

  • [ And they say, "The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son." You have done an atrocious thing. The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation. That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son. And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son. There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant.] ( Qur'an 19:88-93)

    [ [All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance. [He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward. In which they will remain forever. AND TO WARN THOSE WHO SAY. "ALLAH HAS TAKEN A SON". They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.] ( Qur'an 18:1-5)

    [ The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?] (Qur'an 9:30)

    [ The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.] (Qur'an 5:75)

    [ And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.] (Qur'an 4:157)

    [ Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One, Allah , the Eternal Refuge. HE NEITHER BEGETS NOR IS BORN, Nor is there to Him any equivalent."] (Qur'an 112:1-4)

    So to sum it up: I'm not sure if it's the biggest flaw or not, but according to my beliefs, it's definitely a big flaw.

    Misquoting Jesus 👇🏼


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 4

  • why would you say it's the biggest flaw?
    I'm pretty sure a lot of things in most religious doctrines/scriptures are not to be taken literally. More like 'the moral of the story'.

  • I never heard anything about semen travelling.

    The way that Jesus was conceived was through the Holly Spirit, or should I say, through the power of God, using a way much more far superior than our heads could possibly try to imagine.

    I mean if you accept that he has dreated the world without having to use his own hands, like a normal human being would, then can't u accept that he would take a son not through the normal methods for a human as well?

    You are on your own right of choosing whatever opinion u think is the most helpful, but ur choices do reflect the lack of belief u have in this religion and are not very reperesentative of what Christians might think or of a valid explanation they might offer. Just saying. We are misrepresented there.

    • "The way that Jesus was conceived was through the Holly Spirit, or should I say, through the power of God, using a way much more far superior than our heads could possibly try to imagine".
      That is similar to what @YazanAA said, and means that God created Jesus not begot him, then why do you say Jesus is the son of God? why not Adam? God brought Adam into being through the same unimaginable power?

    • Show All
    • The difference is that in the case of Jesus an angel did come to Mary to anounce to here that the child she was carrying would b God's son and that she would b naming him Jesus. In neither of the other cases did God make it so blatantly known that he was indeed the father of the Child.

      But this is far more complicate than what I am explaining here. Since in this does enter the concept of Holly Trinity, which advocates that Jesus, God and the Holly Spirit are all the same God and not separate entities.

      So... Tbh with u. I am a Christian, but I am not sure of who is actually right here or if anyone even is. And I admit this.
      I identify myself more with Christianity because it was the religion I was raised to believe in and also because I am very found of Jesus, Son of God, who came to walk among us as a man.

      But I do see the loopholes in theories Nd I guess I see religions for what they are: a way for us to guide our moral compasses. I will b happy though if it is someday (probably

    • When I die) proven that God exists.

      It will just make the world that more amazing!

      As for using religion as a reason to divide people. I couldnt b more against that. I think no God of any religion would want that.
      I hope that what truly counts is what is in each person's heart. I bet God does see it that way.

  • I never saw him as my biological father, pfff

  • Nope. Stop trying to make marry out to be a non virgin.


What Guys Said 9

  • It's a legend found in many religions predating Christianity

    Maia, mother of Sakia

    Yasoda, mother of Chrishna

    Celestine, mother of the crucified Zunis

    Chimalman, mother of Quexalcote

    Semele, mother of the Egyptian Bacchus

    Minerva, mother of the Grecian Bacchus

    Prudence, mother of Hercules

    Alcmene, mother of Alcides

    Shing- Mon, mother of Yu

    Mayence, mother of Hesus,

    ... were all as confidently believed to be pure, holy and chaste virgins, while giving birth to these Gods, sons of God, Saviors and sin-atoning Mediators, as was Mary, mother of Jesus, and long before her time.

    • Good information, Thank you for sharing.

    • Zeus too was reputed for fathering many children with Earth women, as well as with nymphs but I don't know if virginity was a point in these legends.

  • "God" is a title, not a name. The Christian doctrine is ONE God, consisting of three persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Jesus is not a literal biological son of the father, in fact this was a misconception muhammad drew when he wrote the quran (besides the misunderstanding of the trinity being "father, son and MARY" Surah 5:116). He thought that Christians viewed Jesus as a literal sexual offspring of the father. Which is NOT Christian doctrine. For the guy and the Mythras concept

    Muhammad turned Jesus into his own personal servant. Muhammad reduced Jesus to a herald and forerunner by claiming that Jesus prophesied that a prophet named Ahmad (a literal cognate of “Muhammad”) would follow him (Sura 61:6). By re-creating Jesus as a mere mortal prophet, Muhammad fabricated a Jesus who never existed, one who bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus.

    I'll give you a little research on where this muhammad misconception of God came from.

    I want to begin by noting that Christians had already enjoyed a six-hundred-year-long theological history and had already developed a carefully-thought-through theology of God by the time Muhammad (born about A. D. 570), the author of the Qur’an, began to write his alleged revelations from Allah around A. D. 610. Through the efforts of the first four ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) early church theologians, listening carefully to the Bible, had worked out the church’s doctrine of God as Trinity and its doctrine of the two- natured incarnate Christ. These doctrines, sometimes expressed in philosophico-theological language, were understandably sometimes quite difficult for an average person to comprehend. In the course of developing its theology over these centuries the church also found it necessary to distance itself from the unscriptural views of the second-century Logos-Christologies, third- century forms of modalism, fourth-century Arianism and Apollinarianism, and fifth-century Nestorianism and Eutychianism—all views that basically had in common the denial in one way or another of the incarnation of God the Son as true man. These unscriptural heresies, however, did not die when they were rejected but rather continued to spread throughout some regions of the Middle East, and it was these heresies, especially Arianism, that spread into Arabia and to Mecca where Muhammad was born.

    • Now a careful reading of the Qur’an will disclose that Muhammad did not have a clear grasp of what Scripture and orthodox Christianity were teaching about the Trinity in the seventh century A. D. He was hearing views that had been rejected by the leading theologians of the church such as Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine. Accordingly, his consistent misrepresentation of the Trinity suggests that he conceived of the Trinity along the lines of a crude tritheism, a heresy that Christianity had consistently repudiated. In Sura 4, “Women,” verse 171, the Koran declares: “The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God’s [Allah’s] apostle…. So believe in God [Allah] and his apostles and do not say: ‘Three.’ Forbear, and it shall be better for you. God is but one God. God forbid that he should have a son!” In Sura 5, “The Table,” verse 73, Muhammad teaches: “Unbelievers are those who say: ‘God [Allah] is one of three.’ There is but one God.” Apparently Muhammad believed

    • Show All
    • Lets say a barren woman and her extremely aged husband pray to God to grant them a child, if God gives them a child through his unimaginable power, will we say this child is a son of God?
      No we won't, because God can create this child in the womb of his barren woman without even the semen of his father, and that what he did with Adam he created him without semen nor egg.

    • you have no answer?

  • Mary was just really ballsy. So, rather than just admit that her and Joseph got it on, she concocted this really elaborate story about why she became pregnant. Joseph was like, yup, totally true guy!

    This poor kid grew up basically thinking he was the son of God, and Joseph and Mary were behind him every step of the way acting as his PR managers and making sure he received magic and stage entertainment lessons.

    I think "that's" sorta kinda the biggest flaw with the supposedly historical account of events... plus the fact that the Bible contains no citations to any credible or verifiable sources.

  • It doesn't seem like a flaw to me, no.

    To believe in God requires that a person believe in that which cannot be seen or fully understood.

    So, for example, Jesus being the son of God doesn't necessarily need to be taken literally, as if he came from God's sperm or something like that.

  • I duno man, we're all 50% banana.

  • -shakes head-

  • man is permanently inter-coursed with god and so is nature is are the sons and daughters of god

    • you dont understand the question your even asking. ur asking it based on a false premise.

  • no, since it could be true who knows? i'm not christian, but whatever makes them feel better.

  • There are no flaws in fiction.