DNA and Christ's Birth

[cradleGO]

Given the Statement of Purpose I think this fits. Jesus is fully human and fully God to the Orthodox (me). The Orthodox even say He is the God-man. We know that Jesus got His maternal DNA from His Mother. That leaves the origin of His paternal DNA. Remember - He is fully man.

We know that the Gospels talk about Him having brothers and sisters. This is usually explained as a 1st century term of art which can mean cousin or similar relation. I think there is a citation of Him being similar looking to the Apostle James the Less, his "brother", the first bishop of Jerusalem. And similar references.

We know that given our technology today that humanity leaves its DNA everywhere. And stem cells - creative factors - can be created from various other cells. That is with OUR technology. Today. What if Gabriel, acting from God, found and used Joseph's DNA when He made the invitation/announcement to the Virgin Mary? What if that were the source of Jesus' paternal DNA?

We know that Jesus received His linkage with the House of David through both Joseph's line as well as Mary's line. Mary's was the Royal line, but Joseph was also from the House of David. And tracing Jesus' lineage through Mary was proper according to Jewish Law. If Joseph's DNA was used, then Jesus was fully doubled linked to David. And Jesus truly had brothers and sisters - meaning stepbrothers and stepsisters (edited).

Reaction?

 

[Clare73]

Given the Statement of Purpose I think this fits. Jesus is fully human and fully God to the Orthodox (me). The Orthodox even say He is the God-man. We know that Jesus got His maternal DNA from His Mother. That leaves the origin of His paternal DNA. Remember - He is fully man.
We know that the Gospels talk about Him having brothers and sisters. This is usually explained as a 1st century term of art which can mean cousin or similar relation. I think there is a citation of Him being similar looking to the Apostle James the Less, his "brother", the first bishop of Jerusalem. And similar references.

We know that given our technology today that humanity leaves its DNA everywhere. And stem cells - creative factors - can be created from various other cells. That is with OUR technology. Today. What if Gabriel, acting from God, found and used Joseph's DNA when He made the invitation/announcement to the Virgin Mary? What if that were the source of Jesus' paternal DNA?

As Jesus was conceived by God apart from human paternity, his paternal ancestry is of God alone.
If Jesus could be conceived without natural paternity, then he could be conceived without natural paternal DNA.

Scripture teaches no paternity of Joseph, and where Scripture makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learning.

We know that Jesus received His linkage with the House of David through both Joseph's line as well as Mary's line. Mary's was the Royal line, but Joseph was also from the House of David. And tracing Jesus' lineage through Mary was proper according to Jewish Law. If Joseph's DNA was used, then Jesus was fully doubled linked to David. And Jesus truly had brothers and sisters - meaning stepbrothers and stepsisters (edited).

Reaction?

If the two geneaologies of Mt and Lk were of Joseph and Mary, respectively, then Mary, while a descendant of David, was not of the kingly line (through Nathan) as was Joseph through the kingly line of Solomon.
Jesus' title to kingship was legal through his father, while his natural descendancy from David was through his mother.

So he was a natural descendant of David (through Mary only) with the legal rights of the kingly line (through Joseph).

 

[Qubit]

We know that Jesus got His maternal DNA from His Mother.

We do? Are you referring to Genesis?

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

I do not agree that 'Her Seed' means Jesus. It is a false assumption, especially when compared to Galatians 3:16.

Jesus is Abraham's Seed (Seed of the Father, not Mother)...

Galatians 3:16
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Jesus was made in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh...

Romans 8:3
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

Jesus was made to resemble a Human.

Then there is this...

Hebrews 10:5
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me"

The entire Body was prepared, not half a Body. In other words, the DNA of Jesus was custom made from the ground up.

I hate to say it, but the evidence suggests that Mary was more or less a surrogate.

 

[cradleGO]

As Jesus was conceived by God apart from human paternity, his paternal ancestry is of God alone.
If Jesus could be conceived without natural paternity, then he could be conceived without natural paternal DNA.

Scripture teaches no paternity of Joseph, and where Scripture makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learning.

If the two geneaologies of Mt and Lk were of Joseph and Mary, respectively, then Mary, while a descendant of David, was not of the kingly line (through Nathan) as was Joseph through the kingly line of Solomon.
Jesus' title to kingship was legal through his father, while his natural descendancy from David was through his mother.

So he was a natural descendant of David (through Mary only) with the legal rights of the kingly line (through Joseph).

I think you are missing my point but first I have to correct you on who provided Jesus' Royal line to David. It was through Mary, not Joseph. I provided a link, below from which I state this. The gist is that Joseph is barred from the Royal line due to his genealogy going through Jeconiah, given Jeremiah 22:24-30. The article states that Jesus is not barred from the Royal line however, as He isn't the biological son of Joseph. Luke provides Mary's genealogy which extends to David. Hers does not have the Jeconiah bar. And it was/is acceptable under Jewish law to trace her line back to David for this or for any purpose.

My main point is that we humans in our time know the fundamentals of fertilization. We know that DNA from the male unites with DNA from the female, and a fertilized egg results. And we know and have the technology to prepare stem cells from differentiated cells (like skin cells, mucous cells, etc.) These stem cells can be fashioned into any? or at least a vast array of differentiated human cells. That is our human ability now, 75 or so years after Watson-Crick first described DNA. My suggestion is that Joseph's shed DNA could have been used (like skin cells transformed into stem cells) with Godly Wisdom to provide the male DNA for Jesus.

The Orthodox and others believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Men have a Y chromosome in their cell nucleus. To be fully man, Jesus must have a Y chromosome. {Jesus would need other chromosomes from Joseph as well to complete His full complement of paired chromosomes.} I am providing a hypothesis that is consistent with our understanding of human biology.

Could God have prepared an array of chromosomes from scratch to form the male's portion of chromosomes for Jesus? Based on human technology today, I would say that is feasible but beyond humanity's ability right now. God would know how. But it would be far easier for God to use Joseph's DNA for that purpose. To be clear, I am not suggesting Joseph's sperm. I am suggesting that shed skin cells, etc., could be used for that purpose.

Now, that same bar cited in Jeremiah 22:24-30 given above could be said to apply here, except Jesus is not a natural descendant of Joseph. And He is in the Royal line through His Mother. But if God did use Joseph's DNA, he would have a biological link to Joseph's children, and as I said, a double line to David.

Jesus' Royal Line to David via Mary

 

[cradleGO]

We do? Are you referring to Genesis?

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

I do not agree that 'Her Seed' means Jesus. It is a false assumption, especially when compared to Galatians 3:16.

Jesus is Abraham's Seed (Seed of the Father, not Mother)...

Galatians 3:16
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Jesus was made in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh...

Romans 8:3
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

Jesus was made to resemble a Human.

Then there is this...

Hebrews 10:5
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me"

The entire Body was prepared, not half a Body. In other words, the DNA of Jesus was custom made from the ground up.

I hate to say it, but the evidence suggests that Mary was more or less a surrogate.

You are really making my point in that if God used Joseph's DNA, then in that way He was linked to David and therefore to Abraham. As for the rest, firstly it would be a cruel gesture that no part of Mary would be in Jesus, whom she bore and nurtured. And secondly it violates all aspects of the link between God and humanity, that Jesus is a wholly artificial act of God (pun intended). And lastly it violates the Nicene Creed, and my Orthodoxy (and orthodoxy).

 

[Clare73]

I think you are missing my point but first I have to correct you on who provided Jesus' Royal line to David. It was through Mary, not Joseph. I provided a link, below from which I state this. The gist is that Joseph is barred from the Royal line due to his genealogy going through Jeconiah, given Jeremiah 22:24-30. The article states that Jesus is not barred from the Royal line however, as He isn't the biological son of Joseph. Luke provides Mary's genealogy which extends to David. Hers does not have the Jeconiah bar. And it was/is acceptable under Jewish law to trace her line back to David for this or for any purpose.

It's not about just being a son of David, it must be a son of the kingly line through Solomon, whereas Mary descended from Nathan, not Solomon.

Jehoiachin was Judah's last surviving Davidic king until Christ.

Being conceived without human male, I see no more need to manufacture Joseph's DNA for Jesus than I do to manufacture a human father for Jesus. It's all part of one and the same above-the-laws-of-nature event. I see no need to split it into two events, one according to nature (Jesus' DNA from Joseph) and the other above the laws of nature (no human father). It's all part of one above-the-laws-of-nature event--no father/no human paternal DNA.
Since Scripture does not address the matter, where the word of God makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learning.

If Jesus had Joseph's DNA, then Joseph was his father. But Joseph was not his father.
Jesus' father was God, which is why Jesus was divine as well as human, two natures in one person.

My main point is that we humans in our time know the fundamentals of fertilization. We know that DNA from the male unites with DNA from the female, and a fertilized egg results. And we know and have the technology to prepare stem cells from differentiated cells (like skin cells, mucous cells, etc.) These stem cells can be fashioned into any? or at least a vast array of differentiated human cells. That is our human ability now, 75 or so years after Watson-Crick first described DNA. My suggestion is that Joseph's shed DNA could have been used (like skin cells transformed into stem cells) with Godly Wisdom to provide the male DNA for Jesus.

The Orthodox and others believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Men have a Y chromosome in their cell nucleus. To be fully man, Jesus must have a Y chromosome. {Jesus would need other chromosomes from Joseph as well to complete His full complement of paired chromosomes.} I am providing a hypothesis that is consistent with our understanding of human biology.

Could God have prepared an array of chromosomes from scratch to form the male's portion of chromosomes for Jesus? Based on human technology today, I would say that is feasible but beyond humanity's ability right now. God would know how. But it would be far easier for God to use Joseph's DNA for that purpose. To be clear, I am not suggesting Joseph's sperm. I am suggesting that shed skin cells, etc., could be used for that purpose.

Now, that same bar cited in Jeremiah 22:24-30 given above could be said to apply here, except Jesus is not a natural descendant of Joseph. And He is in the Royal line through His Mother. But if God did use Joseph's DNA, he would have a biological link to Joseph's children, and as I said, a double line to David.

Jesus' Royal Line to David via Mary

 

[cradleGO]

It's not about just being a son of David, it must be a son of the kingly line through Solomon, whereas Mary descended from Nathan, not Solomon.

Jehoiachin was Judah's last surviving Davidic king until Christ.

Being conceived without human male, I see no more need to manufacture Joseph's DNA for Jesus than I do to manufacture a human father for Jesus. It's all part of one and the same above-the-laws-of-nature event. I see no need to split it into two events, one according to nature (Jesus' DNA from Joseph) and the other above the laws of nature (no human father). It's all part of one above-the-laws-of-nature event--no father/no human paternal DNA.
Since Scripture does not address the matter, where the word of God makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learning.

If Jesus had Joseph's DNA, then Joseph was his father. But Joseph was not his father.
Jesus' father was God, which is why Jesus was divine as well as human, two natures in one person.

The descent through Solomon is a (rabbinic) Jewish view. The fundamental messianic requirement is descent from the root of Jesse, and from David (which fulfills Jesse). The topic is pretty involved. Jesus' genealogies were known then and there is no hesitation in the New Testament that Jesus was deficient in His ancestry to be the Messiah. That came from the rabbis much latter. Davidic dynasty in Bible prophecy - Wikipedia

Also I read that the Jeconiah bar was actually lifted in Haggai 2:23: “On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord Almighty.” This is in response to Jer 22:24, which used the signet ring motif to illustrate the bar of his line from the kingship. Mary's genealogy includes Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel - Luke 3:27 . So, Jesus is not barred even though He is the adopted son of Joseph.

On the DNA, once again you are missing the point. I am suggesting a means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA (complement DNA to Mary's DNA to complete his humanness). Rather than prepare this from scratch, it would serve several good purposes to fashion that complement DNA using Joseph's shed DNA.

And, if this was the way that it was done, Joseph would NOT be Jesus' father, as Jesus' birth was divine / supernatural. And Jesus would still have 2 natures in one person.

 

[Clare73]

The descent through Solomon is a (rabbinic) Jewish view.

The descent of Joseph through Solomon is a matter of Biblical record (Mt 1:6, 16), it being the doctrinally inerrant word of God.

The fundamental messianic requirement is descent from the root of Jesse, and from David (which fulfills Jesse). The topic is pretty involved. Jesus' genealogies were known then and there is no hesitation in the New Testament that Jesus was deficient in His ancestry to be the Messiah. That came from the rabbis much latter. Davidic dynasty in Bible prophecy - Wikipedia

Descendancy from the kingly line was simply a legal matter to qualify as king.
Jesus' natural descendancy from Mary did not not qualify him to be king.
However, his legal father Joseph did qualify him to be legal king.

Also I read that the Jeconiah bar was actually lifted in Haggai 2:23: “On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord Almighty.” This is in response to Jer 22:24, which used the signet ring motif to illustrate the bar of his line from the kingship. Mary's genealogy includes Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel - Luke 3:27 . So, Jesus is not barred even though He is the adopted son of Joseph.
On the DNA, once again you are missing the point. I am suggesting a means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA (complement DNA to Mary's DNA to complete his humanness). Rather than prepare this from scratch, it would serve several good purposes to fashion that complement DNA using Joseph's shed DNA.

And I am replying that no suggested means are either necessary or desirable.

And, if this was the way that it was done, Joseph would NOT be Jesus' father, as Jesus' birth was divine / supernatural. And Jesus would still have 2 natures in one person.

On the DNA, once again you are missing the point. I am suggesting a means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA (complement DNA to Mary's DNA to complete his humanness). Rather than prepare this from scratch, it would serve several good purposes to fashion that complement DNA using Joseph's shed DNA.

On what basis do you assume that this whole supernatural event requires natural means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA?
Could not God have created the DNA he wished Jesus to have, just as he created Jesus of Nazareth himself to begin with?

I'm not much inclined to provide solutions/means to God's "problems," when he is the all-powerful Creator and nothing is a problem to him.
That Jesus is his begotten Son gives me to know that the territory in which we are trafficking does not require human solutions to any supposed "problem," and not only does not require any, but more importantly, any human addition thereto is actually a human subtraction therefrom of the glorious divine work.

And, if this was the way that it was done, Joseph would NOT be Jesus' father, as Jesus' birth was divine / supernatural. And Jesus would still have 2 natures in one person.

In God's natural order where Jesus existed, paternal DNA makes one the natural father where it is found.
Jesus' creation transcends the natural order, and is not improved by our nonBibilically-warranted additions to it.
Where God's word makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learning thereof.

 

[cradleGO]

The descent of Joseph through Solomon is a matter of Biblical record (Mt 1:6, 16), it being the doctrinally inerrant word of God.

Descendancy from the kingly line was simply a legal matter to qualify as king.
Jesus' natural descendancy from Mary did not not qualify him to be king.
However, his legal father Joseph did qualify him to be legal king.

And I am replying that no suggested means are either necessary or desirable.

On what basis do you assume that this whole supernatural event requires natural means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA?
Could not God have created the DNA he wished Jesus to have, just as he created Jesus of Nazareth himself to begin with?

I'm not much inclined to provide solutions/means to God's "problems," when he is the all-powerful Creator and nothing is a problem to him.
That Jesus is his begotten Son gives me to know that the territory in which we are trafficking does not require human solutions to any supposed "problem," and not only does not require any, but more importantly, any human addition thereto is actually a human subtraction from the glorious divine work.

In God's natural order where Jesus existed, paternal DNA makes one the natural father where it is found.
Jesus' creation transcends the natural order, and is not improved by our nonBibilically-warranted additions to it.
Where God's word makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learning thereof.

Let's set aside the kingly line matter. We get to the same place, but not via the same route.

Your question: Why do I assume that this supernatural event - Christ's birth - requires natural means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA? Firstly, God did not "create" Jesus of Nazareth - your verb. Jesus existed before time.

My viewpoint - expressed in another post in this category - Genesis and Physics - is that God created the universe, our natural world, and He uses the laws of nature in our realm. Not trying to create new doctrine, but applying logic and fairness. Things we humans perceive as miracles/Divine actions, are in fact physics we do not yet know. I applied that to the birth of Christ. The easiest approach for God would be to use Joseph's shed DNA for that purpose.

Your view of God is a traditional one shared by most. It is a good view for what it is. My working supposition, given what we know about the universe- advanced physics - is that God dwells in another universe (or universes), with instant access to ours. The Holy Spirit is in our world. That/those universe(s) is unseen by humanity. One of those universes is the Kingdom of God. It or another is a place set aside for us. A physical place beyond our current understanding. I won't duplicate what I and others have said in the other post.

So given that perspective, I was laying out a link between our physical world and Christ's birth. We humans can do many things with DNA, but we cannot prepare fertile cells from scratch. Nor prepare male DNA from scratch. Nor fertilize an egg of Mary non-invasively. Nor can humans implant that fertilized egg in Mary's womb non-surgically. Can God do all that? Yes. But again, for the 'small' part of preparing the male component of the fertilization process, Joseph's DNA is right there, likely everywhere in his household. Why not start the process using that?

So, God did use natural laws to incarnate Jesus via Mary. But these are natural laws we don't yet understand/know. We call them divine, heavenly, supernatural, God's work, etc. But they are all part of His Creation, so they are natural.

 

[Clare73]

Let's set aside the kingly line matter. We get to the same place, but not via the same route.

Your question: Why do I assume that this supernatural event - Christ's birth - requires natural means for God to provide Jesus' male DNA? Firstly, God did not "create" Jesus of Nazareth - your verb. Jesus existed before time.

The Son of God has always existed.
Jesus the man did not physically exist before time and was created in time, as was Adam.

IMy viewpoint - expressed in another post in this category - Genesis and Physics - is that God created the universe, our natural world, and He uses the laws of nature in our realm. Not trying to create new doctrine, but applying logic and fairness. Things we humans perceive as miracles/Divine actions, are in fact physics we do not yet know. I applied that to the birth of Christ. The easiest approach for God would be to use Joseph's shed DNA for that purpose.
Your view of God is a traditional one

It is also a Biblical one.

shared by most. It is a good view for what it is. My working supposition, given what we know about the universe- advanced physics - is that God dwells in another universe (or universes), with instant access to ours. The Holy Spirit is in our world. That/those universe(s) is unseen by humanity. One of those universes is the Kingdom of God. It or another is a place set aside for us. A physical place beyond our current understanding. I won't duplicate what I and others have said in the other post.

So given that perspective, I was laying out a link between our physical world and Christ's birth. We humans can do many things with DNA, but we cannot prepare fertile cells from scratch. Nor prepare male DNA from scratch. Nor fertilize an egg of Mary non-invasively. Nor can humans implant that fertilized egg in Mary's womb non-surgically. Can God do all that? Yes. But again, for the 'small' part of preparing the male component of the fertilization process, Joseph's DNA is right there, likely everywhere in his household. Why not start the process using that?

Or why not use the same miraculous process for DNA as was used to fertilize Mary's egg.

So, God did use natural laws to incarnate Jesus via Mary. But these are natural laws we don't yet understand/know. We call them divine, heavenly, supernatural, God's work, etc. But they are all part of His Creation, so they are natural.

It all being a personal point of view. . .

 

[cradleGO]

The Son of God has always existed.
Jesus the man did not physically exist before time and was created in time, as was Adam.

It is also a Biblical one.

Or why not use the same miraculous process for DNA as was used to fertilize Mary's egg.

It all being a personal point of view. . .

I would say it is a different perspective. Jesus was not created. Jesus was incarnate (He put on flesh) by the Holy Spirit per the Nicene Creed. Big difference.

I think my post (and the other mentioned) is compatible with the Bible. I am not saying that my view is unique or a 'discovery'. I haven't seen anyone relate the physical world with the divine in this way. Perhaps they have. One can think of God as a mysterious spirit entity, or one can think of God as part of His Creation, with laws and rules of a physical nature, but such nature we don't know yet.

In my view, the fertilization of Mary's egg wasn't miraculous. It was a natural process, some of which we can understand, some of which we can hypothesize, and much of which we don't know (much of the 'how').

From my perspective, Jesus is the Savior (literally) of this world (dimension). The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is 'physically' in our world (dimension). Jesus and God the Father are 'physically' in (an)other dimension(s). If this doesn't help anyone, so be it. I think it is pretty nifty.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is a very simple solution to this problem. All that needs to be done is to analyze a miniscule amount of the blood which retained in various reliquaries from eucharistic miracles where the wine was really and truly transformed into the very blood of Jesus Christ. I have been quite perplexed that this has not been done to date. If it is done, then multitudes of skeptics and scoffers will be converted, will they not?

Perhaps one reason this has not been done is the failure of the scientific examination of the alleged Shroud of Turin which was proven to contain no blood at all, but only red paint. For more information on that examination, I recommend the report written by Walter McCrone, the world's preeminent microscopist at that time.

 

[Clare73]

I would say it is a different perspective. Jesus was not created. Jesus was incarnate (He put on flesh) by the Holy Spirit per the Nicene Creed. Big difference.

Okay, but the means whereby he "put on flesh" were miraculous.

I think my post (and the other mentioned) is compatible with the Bible. I am not saying that my view is unique or a 'discovery'. I haven't seen anyone relate the physical world with the divine in this way. Perhaps they have. One can think of God as a mysterious spirit entity,

A good study of Leviticus would help with that notion.

or one can think of God as part of His Creation, with laws and rules of a physical nature, but such nature we don't know yet.

That is pantheism.
And God did not create himself as a part of his creation.

In my view, the fertilization of Mary's egg wasn't miraculous. It was a natural process, some of which we can understand, some of which we can hypothesize, and much of which we don't know (much of the 'how').

From my perspective, Jesus is the Savior (literally) of this world (dimension). The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is 'physically' in our world (dimension). Jesus and God the Father are 'physically' in (an)other dimension(s).

The Holy Spirit is not physical, he is Spirit only.

If this doesn't help anyone, so be it. I think it is pretty nifty.

I prefer the truth and power of the word of God written over the human nifty.

 

[cradleGO]

There is a very simple solution to this problem. All that needs to be done is to analyze a miniscule amount of the blood which retained in various reliquaries from eucharistic miracles where the wine was really and truly transformed into the very blood of Jesus Christ. I have been quite perplexed that this has not been done to date. If it is done, then multitudes of skeptics and scoffers will be converted, will they not?

Perhaps one reason this has not been done is the failure of the scientific examination of the alleged Shroud of Turin which was proven to contain no blood at all, but only red paint. For more information on that examination, I recommend the report written by Walter McCrone, the world's preeminent microscopist at that time.

You are very mistaken about the Shroud of Turin. Blood is everywhere, and no paint was found. The blood remains red - usually old blood is brown - due to a phenomena of the body under extreme physical stress (not the best way to say this). Has to do with the bilirubin, a blood component. Pollen studies show the flax from which the linen cloth was prepared was from India. The flax was processed into linen in the Holy Land and fashioned into the shroud/grave linens there as well.

The Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo (Oviedo cloth) were purchased as a set - they match - by Joseph of Arimathea per Scripture. The Oviedo cloth was a necessary funerary item in that it was to be used to soak up blood per Jewish law. That is how it was used. Blood, no image. The Shroud has the image. The weave of the cloth is from the Holy Land and from that time. There is even dust on the Shroud that is only found in dirt near the Damascus Gate. I suggest you review the 2017 Conference on the Shroud of Turin. They have met more recently but I am familiar with the 2017 presentations. A fair minded person will at least be "agnostic" on the authenticity of the Shroud.
The predominant blood type and Rhesus factor (Rh) have been released. The mitochondrial DNA (mother's) haplotype has been identified as well. (Men have their mother's mitochondrial DNA.) It is from that region. I have not seen the Y-chromosome DNA (male) haplotype identified.

The Shroud of Turin has been extensively studied. There is much bad information which is casually repeated as fact. The facts are much different.

 

[cradleGO]

Okay, but the means whereby he "put on flesh" were miraculous.

A good study of Leviticus would help with that notion.

That is pantheism.
And God did not create himself as a part of his creation.

The Holy Spirit is not physical, he is Spirit only.

I prefer the truth and power of the word of God written over the human nifty.

You are missing the point again. From my perspective it is wholly compatible to think that God created the universe and lives within its (His) rules at least in our realm. We know that the universe is very complex with elements of it - the physics - are fashioned, and were not formed by chance. That is my understanding of advanced physics.

From my original post viewpoint, I am saying that the Incarnation is miraculous only because we do no know the entirety of the physics of this universe. The Holy Spirit is spirit because we don't know the full physics involved. If we knew, then we could say that the Holy Spirit is physical in our realm of existence. Likewise I see God following the rules He made for this universe when He is so engaged with us. God did not create himself as a part of His creation. Not what I was saying.

And it is nifty to think of it this way. My approach is nuts and bolts, cause and effect. Many people do not like the "mysterious/miraculous" ideation of God. I am saying that all Creation, seen and unseen, are one physical continuity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are very mistaken about the Shroud of Turin. Blood is everywhere, and no paint was found. The blood remains red - usually old blood is brown - due to a phenomena of the body under extreme physical stress (not the best way to say this). Has to do with the bilirubin, a blood component. Pollen studies show the flax from which the linen cloth was prepared was from India. The flax was processed into linen in the Holy Land and fashioned into the shroud/grave linens there as well.

The Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo (Oviedo cloth) were purchased as a set - they match - by Joseph of Arimathea per Scripture. The Oviedo cloth was a necessary funerary item in that it was to be used to soak up blood per Jewish law. That is how it was used. Blood, no image. The Shroud has the image. The weave of the cloth is from the Holy Land and from that time. There is even dust on the Shroud that is only found in dirt near the Damascus Gate. I suggest you review the 2017 Conference on the Shroud of Turin. They have met more recently but I am familiar with the 2017 presentations. A fair minded person will at least be "agnostic" on the authenticity of the Shroud.
The predominant blood type and Rhesus factor (Rh) have been released. The mitochondrial DNA (mother's) haplotype has been identified as well. (Men have their mother's mitochondrial DNA.) It is from that region. I have not seen the Y-chromosome DNA (male) haplotype identified.

The Shroud of Turin has been extensively studied. There is much bad information which is casually repeated as fact. The facts are much different.

Apparently you have never read Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin by Walter McCrone who was part of the team of scientists commissioned to investigate the shroud. I suggest that you do prior to asserting that there was no paint on the shroud, only blood.

However, if there was blood on the shroud, then it could be easily examined for its DNA content. However, not the slightest indication of any interest in determining the DNA of Jesus Christ has been exhibited by the RCC either from the shroud or from vials containing His blood recovered following eucharistic miracles. Why is that?

 

[Clare73]

You are missing the point again. From my perspective it is wholly compatible to think that God created the universe and lives within its (His) rules at least in our realm. We know that the universe is very complex with elements of it - the physics - are fashioned, and were not formed by chance. That is my understanding of advanced physics.

From my original post viewpoint, I am saying that the Incarnation is miraculous only because we do no know the entirety of the physics of this universe. The Holy Spirit is spirit because we don't know the full physics involved. If we knew, then we could say that the Holy Spirit is physical in our realm of existence. Likewise I see God following the rules He made for this universe when He is so engaged with us. God did not create himself as a part of His creation. Not what I was saying.

And it is nifty to think of it this way. My approach is nuts and bolts, cause and effect. Many people do not like the "mysterious/miraculous" ideation of God. I am saying that all Creation, seen and unseen, are one physical continuity.

I'm sticking with material and immaterial.

 

[Valletta]

However, not the slightest indication of any interest in determining the DNA of Jesus Christ has been exhibited by the RCC either from the shroud or from vials containing His blood recovered following eucharistic miracles. Why is that?

False again. Why do you tell so many tales about Catholics? Catholic scientists from Louis Pasteur to Georges Lemaître have shown great curiousity. An examination of the DNA from Eucharistic miracles has shown missing sequences of DNA. Very strange.

 

[RDKirk]

How do we "know" that Jesus had Mary's DNA? How can we be sure that Jesus was not implanted as a zygote into Mary's womb? If God could create a sperm cell, He could just as well have created a zygote.

 

[bbbbbbb]

False again. Why do you tell so many tales about Catholics? Catholic scientists from Louis Pasteur to Georges Lemaître have shown great curiousity. An examination of the DNA from Eucharistic miracles has shown missing sequences of DNA. Very strange.

I am not aware of any DNA testing done as you described. Would you kindly show me the data? Thank you.