• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Neanderthal by 1 to 4 per cent?

Trimijopulos

Hard-core atheist
Premium Member
For those not aware of the achievements of the science of genetics, the reading of the page BBC News - Neanderthal genes 'survive in us' is a must.

Only sub-Saharan populations are genuine members of the race of the Homo sapiens sapiens. All the rest are contaminated with the genome of the Neanderthals.
It is to be noted, however, that the gene flow went one way: from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens sapiens and not vice-versa. It is obvious that the interbreeding was forced and since the powerful ones, the victors, were the Hss it follows that it was not their women who received the genes of the Neanderthals, it was the Neanderthal women, raped by the victorious Hss male, who contributed their genes to the gene pool of the resulting hybrid offspring.

The first girl who was born to mixed parents was Neanderthal by 50%.
The daughter of that girl was impregnated by either a still pure-blood Hss or a newly produced male hybrid. In any case her Neanderthal genome dropped below that of her mother and it continued to drop until it reached today’s level.

Virgin Mary was a common human with the normal 1%-4% share of Neanderthal genome. That is a non-disputable fact.

The debate question is therefore: what percentage of this 1% to 4% of Neanderthal genome was passed on to her child, given the awkward circumstances of his conception?
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
I'm not fully certain why this would be an issue were it true...

Does it interfere with the "fully man and fully God" thing?
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
You know, Mary conceived a child without a man, maybe because it was a Neanderthal father instead. Would that make God a Caveman?
 

Blackheart

Active Member
Virgin Mary was a common human with the normal 1%-4% share of Neanderthal genome. That is a non-disputable fact.

If something as contraversial as this cant be disputed then whats the point in debating. You already have your conclusion.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
For those not aware of the achievements of the science of genetics, the reading of the page BBC News - Neanderthal genes 'survive in us' is a must.

Only sub-Saharan populations are genuine members of the race of the Homo sapiens sapiens. All the rest are contaminated with the genome of the Neanderthals.
It is to be noted, however, that the gene flow went one way: from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens sapiens and not vice-versa. It is obvious that the interbreeding was forced and since the powerful ones, the victors, were the Hss it follows that it was not their women who received the genes of the Neanderthals, it was the Neanderthal women, raped by the victorious Hss male, who contributed their genes to the gene pool of the resulting hybrid offspring.

The first girl who was born to mixed parents was Neanderthal by 50%.
The daughter of that girl was impregnated by either a still pure-blood Hss or a newly produced male hybrid. In any case her Neanderthal genome dropped below that of her mother and it continued to drop until it reached today’s level.

Virgin Mary was a common human with the normal 1%-4% share of Neanderthal genome. That is a non-disputable fact.

The debate question is therefore: what percentage of this 1% to 4% of Neanderthal genome was passed on to her child, given the awkward circumstances of his conception?

I always knew that the Europeans had Neanderthal in them.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
umm why would it even matter.... if being human means have neanderthal dna then .....so what?
 

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Yeah, and Jesus, assuming he existed, also shared 96% of his DNA with chimpanzees. So what?
But sharing DNA with chimps is degrading to humanity because... well, I dont know the reason, I just know it is and I am always right!

Kidding :p.
 

Trimijopulos

Hard-core atheist
Premium Member
I bet I could dispute it.
Go ahead and dispute!
Yeah, and Jesus, assuming he existed, also shared 96% of his DNA with chimpanzees. So what?
My forefathers and yours and Jesus did not have sex with the chimps but with Neanderthal they did.
I'm not fully certain why this would be an issue were it true...
Does it interfere with the "fully man and fully God" thing?
You are quite right. According to the archaic texts gods had a passion with divine purity. The famous “Imperfect creation” had to do with gods’ inability to create the people they wanted to create. Jesus is evidence that they eventually failed!!
You know, Mary conceived a child without a man, maybe because it was a Neanderthal father instead. Would that make God a Caveman?
Gods were cavemen!
Go to Crete Island in Greece and they’ll show the cave where Zeus was born.
Virgin Mary was a common human with the normal 1%-4% share of Neanderthal genome. That is a non-disputable fact.

If something as contraversial as this cant be disputed then whats the point in debating. You already have your conclusion.
We are to debate the nature of Jesus given the fact that we know the nature of the Virgin.
I always knew that the Europeans had Neanderthal in them.
I my self believe that the first Aboriginals to arrive in Australia were also free of Neanderthal genetic material. It seems like they fled when they found out what was going on with interbreeding.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
For those not aware of the achievements of the science of genetics, the reading of the page BBC News - Neanderthal genes 'survive in us' is a must.

Only sub-Saharan populations are genuine members of the race of the Homo sapiens sapiens. All the rest are contaminated with the genome of the Neanderthals.
It is to be noted, however, that the gene flow went one way: from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens sapiens and not vice-versa. It is obvious that the interbreeding was forced and since the powerful ones, the victors, were the Hss it follows that it was not their women who received the genes of the Neanderthals, it was the Neanderthal women, raped by the victorious Hss male, who contributed their genes to the gene pool of the resulting hybrid offspring.

The first girl who was born to mixed parents was Neanderthal by 50%.
The daughter of that girl was impregnated by either a still pure-blood Hss or a newly produced male hybrid. In any case her Neanderthal genome dropped below that of her mother and it continued to drop until it reached today’s level.

Virgin Mary was a common human with the normal 1%-4% share of Neanderthal genome. That is a non-disputable fact.

The debate question is therefore: what percentage of this 1% to 4% of Neanderthal genome was passed on to her child, given the awkward circumstances of his conception?
Wow, I stay away for a month and this is what I come back to?
 
Top