Jesus has no DNA from Mary

[Selene03]

The main problem that I have with this is that the Immaculate Conception is never taught in the Bible. Although Mary is described as a godly woman (Luke 1:28) and a wonderful wife and mother that Jesus cherished (John 19:27), there is no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Jesus is the ONLY person not "infected" by sin and never committed sin. Otherwise, we have to ask ourselves where Mary fits in passages like Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:23, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 peter 2:22, and 1 John 3:5? Mary is not mentioned as an exception in Roman 3:23. This is why she needed a savior (Luke 1:47). If you combine this with the Omnipotence of God we can only conclude that the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary.

The Bible says that not everything Jesus did and said were written down in scripture. Just because they were not written down doesn't mean that it isn't important. We believe everything He said and did was important.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

We never said that Mary didn't need a savior. She was human like all of us, and she did called God her savior.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Bible says that not everything Jesus did and said were written down in scripture. Just because they were not written down doesn't mean that it isn't important. We believe everything He said and did was important.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

We never said that Mary didn't need a savior. She was human like all of us, and she did called God her savior.

I am not in any disagreement with this statement. Undoubtedly there are uncountable things that Jesus taught that were not written or recorded. However, it is dangerous to fabricate or rationalize things and claim them to be true when there is no recorded teaching that supports it. Much less when there is scripture that suggests the opposite like Romans 3:23.

 

[Selene03]

I am not in any disagreement with this statement. Undoubtedly there are uncountable things that Jesus taught that were not written or recorded. However, it is dangerous to fabricate or rationalize things and claim them to be true when there is no recorded teaching that supports it. Much less when there is scripture that suggests the opposite like Romans 3:23.

These are not fabrications. The Old Testament points to the New Testament, and vice versa. The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed” (St. Agustine).

Just as there is a second Adam, there is also a second Eve. Jesus called His mother "Woman" for a reason, and that reason is found in the Old Testament. The first Adam and Eve were created sinless. In the same way, the second Adam and Eve were also sinless.

 

[prodromos]

Noone can prove it.
But I am suggesting a way to solve the long term problem of perfect Jesus and "Sinless Mary " .

It has never been an issue for Eastern Orthodox. You are solving a problem which does not exist.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

These are not fabrications. The Old Testament points to the New Testament, and vice versa. The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed” (St. Agustine).

Just as there is a second Adam, there is also a second Eve. Jesus called His mother "Woman" for a reason, and that reason is found in the Old Testament. The first Adam and Eve were created sinless. In the same way, the second Adam and Eve were also sinless.

The idea of the Immaculate conception is a fabrication built on tradition, not on scripture. The same is true for the Assumption of Mary and her being the Co-mediatrix. Mary may be considered the "second Eve" but she was not sinless. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that Romans 3:23 is a lie.

 

[prodromos]

Adam was formed from the earth. God took existing matter and used it to create Man. God then took part of Adam's flesh to form Eve, so Adam and Eve are of the same flesh, as are all of their descendants. God takes flesh from the father (sperm) and flesh from the mother (ovum) and creates a new person. It is because of this that Adam's fall impacts on all mankind. For this same reason Christ has to take His flesh from Mary for His death and resurrection to have an impact on all humanity. If He was not of our flesh but instead something identical but created independent of, then His death and resurrection has no salvific value for our flesh.
If God did not take flesh from Mary to create Jesus's body in her womb as He took flesh from Adam to create Eve then there is no salvation. Our flesh remains fallen.

 

[Selene03]

The idea of the Immaculate conception is a fabrication built on tradition, not on scripture. The same is true for the Assumption of Mary and her being the Co-mediatrix. Mary may be considered the "second Eve" but she was not sinless. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that Romans 3:23 is a lie.

Where do you think those Traditions came from? They came from the Apostles of Christ who handed them down to the Church. The Church was told to hold on to those traditions.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

 

[My King and Lord]

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.

How is Jesus a descendant of David and in Luke 3:23-38 the son of Mary's relatives and the son of many prophets?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Where do you think those Traditions came from? They came from the Apostles of Christ who handed them down to the Church. The Church was told to hold on to those traditions.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

First, could you please point me to the source of this tradition? Second, the "teaching/traditions" that Paul is speaking about are specifically the ones he wrote about in the two epistles referenced above. So what evidence is there to suggest that the immaculate conception is one of the "teachings/traditions" that Paul instructed the Church of Thessalonica and Corinth? I don't remember reading anything about Mary in either one of the books. So why is the Immaculate conception included in the teachings of Paul in the Letters to Corinth and Thessalonica?

Third, how do you reconcile what Jesus Himself said about holding to the traditions of men over the Word of God:

"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (Matthew 15: 2-10)

Because of this teaching from Jesus, I have no choice but to value the written word of God over the traditions of men, to include Pope Pious IV.

 

[His student]

.... if you ever want to learn the reasons why we Orthodox believe it is the body and blood of Christ, you are always welcome in St Justin Martyrs, the debate subforum. I personally think it was very helpful to read the interpretations of the early Christians in the first and second century. Just my two cents

I may well do that when I find the time.

Right now my position is that any person who believed on Christ as his only hope of salvation and believed that the Bible, as we have it, is the source of truth as to proper doctrine - who looked honestly at the passages usually cited concerning the Eucharist in the light of the finished work of Christ he had believed in for salvation - with only the Holy Spirit to guide him --- would not come up with anything like the literal changing of the bread and wine to flesh and blood without a lot of input from traditionalists.

Since salvation is not dependent on the Eucharist, as I see things - there is no reason to accept something that is not clearly scriptural.

Of course some believe that partaking in the Eucharist and believing in it a certain way is required for salvation. There I part company with such a person since he or she is preaching another gospel than the one the Philippian jailer and I received.

Again - I have no problem with someone who simply sees the elements of the Eucharist in a different way than I do. It is when such a belief changes the simplicity of the gospel message that I have a very big problem and don't mind saying so.

 

[klutedavid]

These are not fabrications. The Old Testament points to the New Testament, and vice versa. The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed” (St. Agustine).

Just as there is a second Adam, there is also a second Eve. Jesus called His mother "Woman" for a reason, and that reason is found in the Old Testament. The first Adam and Eve were created sinless. In the same way, the second Adam and Eve were also sinless.

The scripture says that God's creation was good, it does not say perfect. Adam and Eve were innocent of sin until temptation knocked on the door. They were flesh and flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God.

After Adam sinned death entered the world and all suffered. No one is good not even one.

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

This eliminates the idea that Mary was sinless.

Tradition changes, the Catholic Church changed tradition in both Vatican I and Vatican II. There is no doubt there will be a Vatican III.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is of paramount importance. Not the gospel of Jesus and sinless Mary.

 

[chilehed]

No , only a suggestion.

Glad to know that you realise you might well be wrong.

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

I wouldn't know about that. I'm Catholic and we don't worship Mary, even though she's sinless.

In fact, I've never met anyone who worships her.

 

[prodromos]

Of course some believe that partaking in the Eucharist and believing in it a certain way is required for salvation. There I part company with such a person since he or she is preaching another gospel than the one the Philippian jailer and I received.

John 6:53
The Philippian jailer would have been taught a great deal more after his conversion.

 

[Selene03]

The scripture says that God's creation was good, it does not say perfect. Adam and Eve were innocent of sin until temptation knocked on the door. They were flesh and flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God.

After Adam sinned death entered the world and all suffered. No one is good not even one.

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

This eliminates the idea that Mary was sinless.

Tradition changes, the Catholic Church changed tradition in both Vatican I and Vatican II. There is no doubt there will be a Vatican III.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is of paramount importance. Not the gospel of Jesus and sinless Mary.

Adam and Eve were created without sin. That is man's true humanity and nature because man was created in the image and likeness of God. Sin is foreign to man's human nature and only came about from man's free will. So, the humanity that Jesus was incarnated through was a humanity that had no sin.....the same state that Adam and Eve was created in before they sinned.

Flesh was able to enter the kingdom of Heaven when Christ resurrected from death and ascended body and soul into Heaven. It was the resurrection that conquered death and opened the gates of Heaven to man. Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, which will occur in Christ's second coming.

 

[RDKirk]

No, Mary never had any other children.

She wouldn't have to. She had at least a cousin, and if Jesus had cousins, then she had siblings. They would all share some DNA, and so if Jesus had any of Mary's DNA, then someone today shares DNA with Jesus.

We have found people today who share Aaron's DNA, and he was many generations earlier than Mary. So we can find people who share Mary's DNA and thus Jesus.'

If Jesus actually has any of Mary's DNA.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Adam and Eve were created without sin. That is man's true humanity and nature because man was created in the image and likeness of God. Sin is foreign to man's human nature and only came about from man's free will. So, the humanity that Jesus was incarnated through was a humanity that had no sin.....the same state that Adam and Eve was created in before they sinned.

Flesh was able to enter the kingdom of Heaven when Christ resurrected from death and ascended body and soul into Heaven. It was the resurrection that conquered death and opened the gates of Heaven to man. Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, which will occur in Christ's second coming.

I agree. Both Adam and Eve were created with perfection by a perfect Creator. However, one of the perfections that God gave Adam and Eve were free will. The fact that they chose to use their free will to sin in no way makes God or His creations any less perfect. God would be responsible for making sin possible by giving them free will. However, Adam and Eve are responsible for making sin actual.

 

[RDKirk]

To say that Jesus took no DNA from Mary is to deny his humanity which is Gnosticism which is heresy. Period.

No, it isn't. You don't seem to know what Gnosticism is.

 

[All4Christ]

No, it isn't. You don't seem to know what Gnosticism is.

Valentinian, however, did promote that Jesus was “deposited” in the womb of Mary - and he was a gnostic.

 

[prodromos]

Both Adam and Eve were created with perfection by a perfect Creator.

No, the Scriptures state that God created everything "good". Nowhere is it stated that God created them perfect.
Adam and Eve had the potential to become much more, but they were impatient and were easily swayed by the deception of the serpent. If they had been obedient they would have eventually eaten of the same fruit when they had matured, and it would not have been to their detriment.

 

[Strong in Him]

Continued from yesterday

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

Jesus was never a living person?? What???

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

I never said he was.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit - I've said this several times. Joseph was not involved in Jesus' conception.
But the foetus that had been conceived grew inside Mary, a human being. Their child, who was the Messiah, the Saviour in the line of David and the Son of God, was born - like other children are. And after being born, he grew up.
He did not just appear - created as a fully grown man like Adam was. He had a birth, a childhood and family life. God chose that it should happen this way.

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

Nonsense.
You have no idea what I want - and if you think that's it, you're wrong.

Jesus was the creator of time space and appeared to redeem humanity. His eye color and hair color is irrelevant.

Yes, of course it is. But the point is that he had both eye and hair colour - determined by genes.

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
We don't know HOW - Scripture doesn't say so obviously we don't need to know. I believe that the Spirit cause one of Mary's eggs to be fertilised - it was not male sperm which did so.
If that was the case, and personally I can't see an alternative, one of Mary's eggs was involved. As in the conception of all babies, sperm fertilises egg; it cannot produce new life on its own.

Now God can do anything and could have bypassed this whole process - having Jesus created a grown man, just as Adam was. He chose not to do that.
Jesus was like us in every way, except that he didn't sin.
Jesus was 100% human and 100% God. FULLY human, but not ONLY human.