Jesus has no DNA from Mary

[johnnywong]

How do you know all of this? Jesus is fully human as well as fully God.

His blood line had to come from a human.

Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.

Where are you getting this from?

 

[Strong in Him]

Adam did not exist before being created.

I know.

Jesus existed before being born in Bethlehem.

The eternal Word existed, John 1:1-3; the second person of the Trinity.
The baby who was given the human name, Jesus, existed in Mary's womb, and then obviously when he was born. Before this, the Word was only God - in Jesus, he was God AND Man.

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

Yes, a human being; like us in every way (except without sin.)
Human beings have DNA.

The only other alternative is that Jesus was placed as a fully grown Spirit child into Mary's womb - and she carried him, unnecessarily, for 9 months.

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

I wasn't talking about a genetic, blood connection to Adam.

You are viewing Jesus in utterly human form

No I'm not. I have said, several times, that the divine, eternal word was made flesh - and was given the name Jesus.

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

I never said anything about being defined by the flesh.
God chose that his Son would come into the world as a human being - a real, flesh and blood baby, born in the way that all babies are born.
As a baby, and real human being, Jesus had human DNA - and genes, btw, that determined hair and eye colour etc.
If he didn't get it from Mary, who did he get it from?

 

[Strong in Him]

Correct!
4 types of creationt of human being

Adams from dust
Eve from rib
We from phyiscal mother and father


Jesus perfect human DNA from Holy Spirit alone and Born sinless Human for the first time in Human history! Amen!

You can't get DNA from a Spirit.
If Jesus had had NO human DNA he wouldn't have been human.
DNA does not determine, or mean, that a person will sin. Sin is rebellion against God. Satan was a created angel and rebelled against God; whose DNA did he have?

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.

In your theory - ah, not Scripture.
I see.

 

[hedrick]

No, only having Mary's DNA would not make Jesus female.... That is all about Chromosomes. XX is female.... XY is male.

Mary's DNA didn't have Y. To get a Y, either God has to create it, or it comes from a male. One suggestion here was that got converted Mary's DNA into a Y. I think that classifies as God making it.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.

I agree that God could create a human. However such a human wouldn't be "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3)

 

[Albion]

Yikes!

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.

I don't see your point here. God became man at a certain point in time. This passage in Scripture describes that development.

 

[His student]

......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.

You are probably right in so far as you are talking about their traditions.

Which is exactly my point.

A new believer in the Word of God who has never been influenced by traditions and only had the scriptures to rely on - would read the words concerning what went on at the Last Supper vis a vis the pronouncing by the Lord of the bread and the wine as being His body and blood and telling them to do this in remembrance of Me and what He was about to do, and would see it for what I believe it to be - figurative language.

I.e. - the incarnate Lord was not handing them His foot or His ears with His literally incarnate hands. To think that is not only ridiculous it denies the theology of His incarnate sacrifice at Calvary.

This being the case - there is no reason to make such a big deal about His words that taking them as literal becomes the vehicle for salvation itself as it does in Catholicism.

But even if somehow there was some sort of mystic goings on at the Last Supper which enabled a literal man to hand someone His neck , elbow, spleen or whatever else you believe He was literally handing His disciples before getting up to wash their feet - there is absolutely no scriptural justification for believing that a select group of men in black have had for the last 2000 years the ability and right to go through rituals and then pronounce store bought wafers and glasses of grape juice the body and blood of God.

If the Orthodox church, or the Lutheran church, or any other branch of the church happens to believe that the body and blood is actually in the traditional meal - I have no problem with begging to differ with them and yet calling those in their church my brothers and sisters.

What I have a problem with and why I protest so openly about it is an authoritative and often corrupt organization doling salvation itself with their traditions.

For those who may say that there is no real harm in using these traditions in this way - I would simply point to the tradition steeped Mother Theresa and the utter anguish that the church's control of her salvation caused her. Few are more "Roman Catholic" than her and her memoirs show a person who lived each day with the fear that she would die without the proper rites and find herself in Hell.

Add to that example the millions of poor and or illiterate in Latin America and around the world who have been denied the assurance of salvation which only comes from a personal resting in the finished work of Jesus Christ on their behalf at Calvary.

If and when a person finally escapes from the captivity that is the false way of salvation preached by some tradition minded hierarchies - and finally understands what they were held captive by - and once they are able to read for themselves the events and words which their former captives had twisted to work into the works salvation they preached - they are usually amazed that such a simple event as the one at the Last Supper could be so construed as to be made into another gospel.

I have no real idea what you believe about the role of the Eucharist in salvation. You'd have to tell me. But if it in any way makes this or any other tradition a part of salvation in the most basic sense - my beef would be with you as well as with the Roman Catholic organization.

But - I am perfectly willing to let this line of reasoning go for now. But I will not change my tune or cease to point out the travesty that these traditional supposed ways of salvation have become over the course of the church age to the shame of those who continue to teach these harmful and unscriptural beliefs.

 

[klutedavid]

I agree that God could create a human. However such a human wouldn't be "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3)

Born into the house of David not from the house of David.

David was not the great grandfather of Jesus.

No biological lineage then no ancestry is involved. Of us but not from us.

 

[Sanoy]

Inheritance of rights and property and status are a human construct and the idea of surrogate mother was completely unknown at the time and therefore all status items (such as tribal membership, being of line of David) would have been accepted.

If it was only to establish rights and property why would the author go as far as Adam or Abraham? Can one be in the line of David through adoption? 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 suggests that a foreign son can be adopted to pass on the line and receive the inheritance, but does that give him any rights to become king? It didn't help Ishmael, being the first born, to become Abrams heir because Sarah gave birth to a more legitimate heir. And it seems that the birthright, the double portion, is guaranteed to the first born of the father despite his wishes to do otherwise(Deut. 21:15-17), and Joseph does go on to have a first born son of his own (With the exception of Catholic belief).

 

[klutedavid]

The storm could never have capsized the boat with Jesus in it.

I believe that Jesus' recalling (perhaps recitation) of Psalm 22 was the mechanism by which He caused His flesh to be subject to death. I don't think that without His own will to permit it that the nails would even have been able to penetrate His skin.

Correct the crowd had no power over Jesus and they could not throw Him over the cliff. Nor did the devil have any control or power over Jesus.

The crucifixion was allowed to happen, permitted to occur. Everything was always under the full control of the One who created the reality itself.

 

[veracious]

You said that Jesus did not have a human father, but you failed to mention the paternal lineage of Jesus?

Was Jesus from Mary or was Jesus from above?

Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.

There are five main truths with which the creed of Chalcedon summarized the biblical teaching on the Incarnation:

1. Jesus has two natures — He is God and man.
2. Each nature is full and complete — He is fully God and fully man.
3. Each nature remains distinct.
4. Christ is only one Person.
5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.

 

[klutedavid]

I know.
The eternal Word existed, John 1:1-3; the second person of the Trinity.

Correct.

The baby who was given the human name, Jesus, existed in Mary's womb, and then obviously when he was born. Before this, the Word was only God - in Jesus, he was God AND Man.

The baby was the Old Testament YHWH and YHWH walked in the garden, Adam could hear His steps.

Yes, a human being; like us in every way (except without sin.) Human beings have DNA.

YHWH in human form but not a blood relative of any man. Jesus had distinct lineage and that lineage was not from the dust.

The only other alternative is that Jesus was placed as a fully grown Spirit child into Mary's womb - and she carried him, unnecessarily, for 9 months.

Now you have it correct.

Mary carried Jesus, bore Jesus, but Jesus was not from here. God predestined this event to occur, God saw it as necessary for Jesus to be born in human form.

I wasn't talking about a genetic, blood connection to Adam.

That is exactly what your genetic claim regarding DNA was all about.

No I'm not. I have said, several times, that the divine, eternal word was made flesh - and was given the name Jesus.

Correct and I agree.

I never said anything about being defined by the flesh.

Good because Jesus took on human form but was never a living soul like Adam.

God chose that his Son would come into the world as a human being - a real, flesh and blood baby, born in the way that all babies are born.

The Son did not come into the world.

The Word came into the world as the Son.

Jesus was not a genetic result of human union, that is blasphemy.

As a baby, and real human being, Jesus had human DNA - and genes, btw, that determined hair and eye colour etc.
If he didn't get it from Mary, who did he get it from?

This is your error, you desperately want Jesus to be the apple that did not fall far from the tree.

Jesus was the creator of time space and appeared to redeem humanity. His eye color and hair color is irrelevant. Jesus was always God and the transfiguration illustrated that Jesus is not defined by time and space.

Jesus exists through and beyond space time.

Jesus can never be wholly contained within any dimension be it human or otherwise.

To look at Jesus is looking into eternity.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

A fetus does not "share" the mother's blood.

I know.

 

[Sanoy]

Actually, you would need to provide an ancient reference asserting that Jesus had DNA from Mary.

That concept is modern--the ancients believed that the seed was wholly from the man--that the woman merely provided a gestation environment.

In the case of Jesus, they were correct. The Holy Spirit did not place His sperm in Mary to inseminate one of her ova, He placed the complete zygote of Jesus into Mary.

Which is actually the only thing that makes sense.

The author doesn't know anything about DNA, no one at that time did. I am making a text critical objection to the OP, who bares the burden of proof. There would have to be some indication that the author was trying to inform the audience that Mary was a surrogate, and that concept would have to be already in the minds of the audience to understand it. What the author intends is our first consideration here, not creating solutions to problems.

The Biblical ancients believed the two cleaved and became 1. In 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 we have an Egyptian slave become heir through the daughter which establishes much more than just a womb. They viewed it as a sower and a field, not that the man implants an egg in the women like a surrogate. Judah spilled his "seed" on the ground, if women were merely a surrogates in procreation he would have just committed murder.

I don't think the Holy Spirit placed sperm in Marry. We don't have to paint the insertion of chromosomes as some sexual act of the spirit for the purpose of being provocative here. Jesus needs to actually be an Israelite man in the line of David, and you don't get that without Marry since Joseph isn't a participant.

I'm not saying Jesus had Josephs DNA. I think the author of Matthew is trying to place Jesus as a first born of Joseph. But that can only work because of Mary as it did in 1 Chronicles.

 

[klutedavid]

Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.

There are five main truths with which the creed of Chalcedon summarized the biblical teaching on the Incarnation:

1. Jesus has two natures — He is God and man.
2. Each nature is full and complete — He is fully God and fully man.
3. Each nature remains distinct.
4. Christ is only one Person.
5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.

They speak in riddles and present a paradox.

Jesus was YHWH, Jesus humbled Himself and appeared in human form. Jesus was never scientifically speaking a descendant of Adam.

Jesus was a life generating Spirit in human form. Men result from human union, Jesus was never the result of any human union. God did this so that you would never look at Jesus as a mere man. Rather always look at Jesus and see the Holy and Righteous One.

Jesus never behaved as men behave, Jesus never had a fallen nature. Jesus never needed to offer sacrifices for sin. Jesus never pondered His own identity.

Jesus always knew His Father and even in human form, the Father and Jesus were one.
The human form that Jesus inhabited was only for a few decades, for a purpose, a mission.

To even contemplate Jesus other than by His eternal identity, by His true name, the name above all names. Is reducing the Holy One to a human definition and misses the mark completely.

It is far better to see Jesus in the human form as the very image of God in every way.

 

[Dave G.]

No , only a suggestion.
But i want to releas thousands of people who may have the bondage to worship Mary because of the potential subconcsious belief of Sinless Mary

If you want to convince them of something other than their church doctrine has taught them, this DNA thing isn't going to do it. You need a different approach, convincing people of things comes by way of the Holy Spirit and He shows up when truth is spoken from scripture . Faith comes by hearing ( if they will listen, which is very unlikely). Speaking of which, has the Holy Spirit assigned you this task ? If not then nobody should be listening.

 

[Strong in Him]

Now you have it correct.

No, no Scriptural.

Mary carried Jesus, bore Jesus, but Jesus was not from here. God predestined this event to occur, God saw it as necessary for Jesus to be born in human form.

Jesus was not only in human form but fully human - like us in every way.

To be continued.

 

[devin553344]

Jesus was half God?

You need to have a chat with an inquisitor.

what do you suggest? I'm open to suggestion!