Jesus has no DNA from Mary

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I'm pretty sure God doesn't have DNA, so he can't have been the biological father. Jesus can't have had only Mary's. That would make him female. Either God used DNA from an actual man or he created it. Theologically it would make more sense for him to use an actual man's, though God is certainly not obligated to act in accordance with our theology.

No, that isn't true. On an atomic level, the Holy Spirit could change the genome from XX to XY. After all, God is sovereign over the creation.

Although I do agree with you; God not having a body would not have DNA. Yet, eggs have all 46 chromosomes even before they are fertilized. Sperm only have 23. So there was certainly enough genetic material there to work with.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus has no DNA from Mary, because Mary is a surrogated mother only.

Then there will be no need of Immaculate Conception: the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus.

Gestational surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is implanted in a surrogate, sometimes called a gestational carrier.

Gestational surrogacy may take a number of forms, but in each form the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate.

Holy Spirit created the embryo of Jesus inside Mary.

Except that Paul said Jesus was in all way made as we are. If you read early Christian accounts you'll find that people said that Jesus looked like James. I'd say that indicates similar DNA
 
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The apostles certainly didn't think that Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist was "extra-Biblical Catholic hocus-pocus", nor did any of the martyrs over the past 20 centuries of Christian history who've risked their lives (and often laid them down) in order to rescue the Blessed Sacrament from harm.
I know of no case where any martyr in the last 2000 years gave his or her life to protect a wafer or a glass of wine over which some priest had proclaimed "Hoc est enim corpus meum," (from which we get the term hocus pocus) and proclaimed them the body and blood of the resurrected Lord.

The idea that the Son of Man was actually handing His body and blood to the disciples with His own incarnate hands at the Last Supper while still in His per-resurrection flesh - is preposterous on the face of it.

He said "do this in remembrance of Me". He did not say re-sacrifice Me over and over again and dole Me out to the masses while holding them captive to the organized church for the salvation which I will gain for them by My once for all death on Calvary.

To most thinking believers the very idea denies the once for all literal incarnation of the Son of God - the very thing we are discussing here - as well as the once for all bodily resurrection.

Talk about controversial Christian theology.

If you want to believe these things simply because some organization headquartered in Rome tells you to suspend all logic and proper scripture exegesis - go ahead on.
I don't subscribe to sola or solo scriptura, so I recognize the faultiness in that argument.
Of course that is the root of the problem we have in this subject and likely many others as well.

You offer nothing to substantiate your outlandish claim that Jesus was handing His literal body to the disciples while in the literal flesh of His incarnation but the traditions of an organization long ago debunked as to their being the only authority as to truth.

But we don't need to re litigate the issue of the Reformation here. Let's agree to disagree.

I believe my salvation is gained by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. You believe yours is gained by faith in the dogma of the Church of Rome.

I hope the Lord will consider your faith to be a justifying faith when you meet Him face to face. I will not here question your saved status even though I find your beliefs incredulous.

I pray for the salvation of the cults even as I stand against their strange beliefs. Not only is proclaiming you or them "unsaved" against the rules of the forum which I strive to obey - it is not my job to set myself up as the final judge of any man or woman as to their tinal status before God.

I know the Lord will my faith a justifying faith.

"I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have entrusted against that day." 2 Timothy 1:12

And - yes - I know it because the Word of God tells me so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I would need Biblical proof that Biblical proof is the only acceptable form of proof- but Jesus established a Church, not Scripture (though He used and inspired it), so I can't constrain myself to that latter century convention.

ALL THE BIBLE (AND ONLY THE BIBLE) IS THE WORD OF GOD

"Then said I, Lo, I come in the volume of the book it is written of me," Ps 40:7, Heb 10:7

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:" 1 Cor 15:3

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Tim 3:16

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" 2 Pet 1:21

To claim a human authority (such as a priest or the Pope) would be to adding to the Scripture.

"For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plaques that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life," Rev 22:18 &19

There are those who would contend that this warning is speaking only about the book of Revelation; although if we look closely at the language we see that isn't so. The literal Greek rendering is "the words of the prophecy of this scroll" The New Testament (including the book of Revelation) was written in letter form, so we know this isn't talking about the book of Revelation. The "prophecy of the scroll" I believe was the Old Testament. The Hebrew Scriptures testified to the reality of the Messiah. "God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" This I believe is a reference to the book of Revelation and "Every man who hears the words of the prophecy of the scroll" I believe is a reference to the New Testament. One doesn't come without the other. They work in tandem.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
...If Christ had lived on til old age, He would have died as all humans do.

Wrong.

Just before His Passion, the Savior said, "No one takes My life. I give it."
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I know of no case where any martyr in the last 2000 years gave his or her life to protect a wafer or a glass of wine over which some priest had proclaimed "Hoc est enim corpus meum," (from which we get the term hocus pocus) and proclaimed them the body and blood of the resurrected Lord.

I guess you've never heard of the young martyr Tarcisius, have you? That's exactly what He did.

And the word of God tells all the pre-reformation churches that the bread and wine of the Eucharist truly become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even Luther believed this.

Jean Chauvin (the real name of John Calvin) even called his own Eucharistic doctrine "real presence."
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Wrong.

Just before His Passion, the Savior said, "No one takes My life. I give it."

I agree with you here. If Jesus had not been crucified, He'd still be alive today. He'd just be realllllllyyyyyy old!
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, Jesus of Nazareth did not. The Second Person of the Trinity and the Son of God did, but the event we are discussing is called the Incarnation because that is the point in time at which the Son of God took on a human nature and he was then called Jesus.
Yikes!
Actually, Jesus of Nazareth did not. The Second Person of the Trinity and the Son of God did, but the event we are discussing is called the Incarnation because that is the point in time at which the Son of God took on a human nature and he was then called Jesus.
LOGOS
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I know of no case where any martyr in the last 2000 years gave his or her life to protect a wafer or a glass of wine over which some priest had proclaimed "Hoc est enim corpus meum," (from which we get the term hocus pocus) and proclaimed them the body and blood of the resurrected Lord.

The idea that the Son of Man was actually handing His body and blood to the disciples with His own incarnate hands at the Last Supper while still in His per-resurrection flesh - is preposterous on the face of it.

He said "do this in remembrance of Me". He did not say re-sacrifice Me over and over again and dole Me out to the masses while holding them captive to the organized church for the salvation which I will gain for them by My once for all death on Calvary.

To most thinking believers the very idea denies the once for all literal incarnation of the Son of God - the very thing we are discussing here - as well as the once for all bodily resurrection.

Talk about controversial Christian theology.

If you want to believe these things simply because some organization headquartered in Rome tells you to suspend all logic and proper scripture exegesis - go ahead on.

Of course that is the root of the problem we have in this subject and likely many others as well.

You offer nothing to substantiate your outlandish claim that Jesus was handing His literal body to the disciples while in the literal flesh of His incarnation but the traditions of an organization long ago debunked as to their being the only authority as to truth.

But we don't need to re litigate the issue of the Reformation here. Let's agree to disagree.

I believe my salvation is gained by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. You believe yours is gained by faith in the dogma of the Church of Rome.

I hope the Lord will consider your faith to be a justifying faith when you meet Him face to face. I will not here question your saved status even though I find your beliefs incredulous.

I know the Lord will my faith a justifying faith.

"I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have entrusted against that day." 2 Timothy 1:12

And - yes - I know it because the Word of God tells me so.
Jesus said that it is His body and blood. He directly said that. To deny the reality of it is to deny what He said.

As an Orthodox Christian we believe that the Eucharist is truly our Lord’s body and blood. However, it is not a resacrifice. Christ isn’t sacrificed again and again. Doing it in remembrance doesn’t mean it that it is all just symbolic.
John 6 said:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Note: before you say something about the doctrine of transubstantiation, that is not a required doctrine to believe in the body and blood of Christ. For thousands of years, Christians both East and West held to this teaching. The original Protestant reformers still held to the Real Presence. It is a very recent teaching to say otherwise. Check out St Justin Martyr from around 150AD for some early church context if desired.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess you've never heard of the young martyr Tarcisius, have you? That's exactly what He did.
The story of Tarcisius is the stuff of obscure poems and dubious legends. But thank you for pointing to him as a possible example of dying while protecting the Eucharist.
And the word of God tells all the pre-reformation churches that the bread and wine of the Eucharist truly become the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Word of God was not available to all of the pre--Reformation churches and certainly not to the laity.
Even Luther believed this. Jean Chauvin (the real name of John Calvin) even called his own Eucharistic doctrine "real presence."
Of course most all Roman Catholic ordained priests would certainly believe this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

His student

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,235
555
78
Northwest
✟48,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus said that it is His body and blood. He directly said that. To deny the reality of it is to deny what He said.
No one has denied that the Lord said those words.
As an Orthodox Christian we believe that the Eucharist is truly our Lord’s body and blood. However, it is not a resacrifice. Christ isn’t sacrificed again and again.
Than your belief concerning the Eucharist is different than what the Roman Catholics believe is being accomplished by the many words and gyrations of their ordained priesthood. I believe I was speaking to a Roman Catholic.
Doing it in remembrance doesn’t mean it that it is all just symbolic.
Not necessarily - no.

But a proper understanding of the incarnation and the resurrection does require it to be symbolic or deny some quite basic doctrine in the opinion of most Bible believing Protestants.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
No one has denied that the Lord said those words.
Than your belief concerning the Eucharist is different than what the Roman Catholics believe is being accomplished by the many words and gyrations of their ordained priesthood. I believe I was speaking to a Roman Catholic.

Not necessarily - no.

But a proper understanding of the incarnation and the resurrection does require it to be symbolic or deny some quite basic doctrine in the opinion of most Bible believing Protestants.
Thanks for your response.

Yes, you were speaking to a Roman Catholic. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I was commenting on the portion about it being the body and blood of Christ.

I believe the last sentence only applies to most non-traditional (for a lack of a better categorization) Protestants, ie later denominations or non-denominational churches. The early Protestant Churches / Reformed churches still hold to the Real Presence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Jesus has no DNA from Mary, because Mary is a surrogated mother only.

A claim without basis, and one that attacks the integrity of the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Holy spirit can create embryo from nothing

What God can do, and what God did do, are different things.

What God did was have Mary conceive her Child as a virgin, this was by the power of the Holy Spirit. So that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is indeed truly human as well as truly God.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

veracious

Member
Jul 27, 2007
9
6
San Francisco Bay Area
Visit site
✟8,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Jesus had to have DNA from Mary. For the simple reason that Jesus had to be a man, a kinsman redeemer. If he wasn't man he could never have freed us from our sin.
Hebrews 2:11 states that "Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." Jesus is not only our redeemer from sin, but as Hebrews 2:16-18 and 4:14-16 point out, he is a kinsman to us and understands our struggles. Thus he is able to help us in our times of need.
Mary was a virgin and contributed her DNA, not Joseph. Mary went on to have four boys and at least two daughters. Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus so these were the half brothers of Jesus. The last three mentioned are not to be confused with those who were disciples of Jesus by the same name. Here are some passages where the other sons of Mary by Joseph are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

devin553344

I believe in the Resurrection
Nov 10, 2015
3,607
2,249
Unkown
✟93,810.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
But Genesis 3:15 is essentially saying that the Messiah is of the "seed of a woman." Scripture refers to the seed of humans as involving the reproductive process or procreation of themselves. Do you need another citation in the Bible where a "seed" can be in reference to a human as talking about their method of reproduction?

Furthermore, Jesus is called the King of the Jews. How can he be a king of the Jews if He is not a Jew Himself? Did not Jesus also say that salvation was of the Jews? Is there no other name under Heaven whereby men can be saved? This leads us to the conclusion that is the "God-man" (a Jew genetically) who is our Savior.

Also, why would God go to all the trouble of placing Jesus in Mary if He was not genetically a part of her? God could have easily brought forth a baby directly from Heaven with divine flesh (unrelated to Adam). He could have formed the body like He did with Adam (by creating the body out of the dirt). This is what should have happened if things were as you say.

I don't know, my point is that it is just speculation really, you can prove that Jesus was from David, and that Jesus was at least half human, but you can also prove that he was half God.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born as a baby.
He did not appear as a fully formed human; he was born to a woman.



Upon what unambiguous Scripture do you base YOUR teaching that Jesus was placed inside Mary as a fully formed, complete human being and needed nothing - no food, DNA or anything - from her at all?
Why bother with Mary at all if Jesus appeared as a fully formed, grown man? Mary went to visit Elizabeth during her pregnancy, and later "the time came" for the child to be born. Jesus was conceived in her, grew and 9 months later, she gave birth to him - a baby, not a Spirit.
Adam did not exist before being created.

Jesus existed before being born in Bethlehem.

DNA does not enter into the equation because Jesus was God who then became a man.

Jesus by definition is not of Adam's lineage because Jesus is the creator of Adam's lineage.

You are viewing Jesus in utterly human form but Jesus was never of this world, Jesus was from above.

Jesus came to us in the flesh but Jesus is not defined by the flesh as we are.
 
Upvote 0