Jesus has no DNA from Mary

klutedavid said:

The only problem you have with your explanation is that Jesus was born a King.

Jesus was worshiped at birth.

Jesus never claimed to be the offspring of Adam, Jesus always said that He came from above. Jesus assumed our human form, Jesus was never a created entity like us.

Jesus always knew exactly who He was and was the Word in human form.

Whether Jesus looked like His mum is irrelevant.

A humble God in human form.

Click to expand...

What does being born a King and being worshiped at birth have anything to do with how He was created? How does that relate to what I said?

I never said Jesus was the offspring of Adam either. (You need to read posts more carefully.) He was called the "Last Adam" (I Corinthians 15:46)

To say "Jesus was never a created entity" isn't accurate either; because Jesus did not possess a human nature prior to creation's existence, or prior to incarnation. The Son (2nd person of the Trinity) certainly has an eternal existence; but make no mistake the humanity of Jesus certainly had an origin.

Carbon based life has form and structure, where as God does not because He's Spirit. If God is the only entity that exists prior to Him creating anything; to say the entirety of the Son (fleshy form) is also eternally existent would be an oxymoron. A substance Deity (or substance form of Deity) can not exist prior to substance created. That's illogical.

And here is the interesting thing about that. Once the Son took on a human nature; it had been planned / accommodated for back before creation commenced that the God/man - (physical body) would be an eternal aspect of the Son's existence from the incarnation on. This is the reason for the creation of the new heavens and new earth. Biological entities transformed "from glory to glory" are still created entities and the Son, now has a "created component" as a permeant part of His eternal existence.

Kind of "wiggy" yeah; but God is an infinitely imaginative entity.

Jon Osterman said:

Of course, with modern technology, a virgin birth is not difficult. Many children are now conceived without sex (though I suppose it would be very unusual for parents to not try the traditional method first).

Click to expand...

Actually, it is that difficult. The religious theory about Mary being ever-Virgin derives from the early folklore that said she not only was impregnated while a virgin but remained one, physically, even after giving birth.

Jon Osterman said:

I wasn't suggesting that Mary wasn't a virgin. If God can implant an embryo with DNA into Mary's womb by supernatural (i.e. not sexual) means, then He can easily make that DNA a combination of Mary's and Joseph's. In fact, it seems the obvious thing to do.

Of course, with modern technology, a virgin birth is not difficult. Many children are now conceived without sex (though I suppose it would be very unusual for parents to not try the traditional method first).

Click to expand...

an embryo would suggest conception outside of the womb. I think it is of the utmost importance that Christ is conceived in the womb for him to qualify as fully human. Even the slightest moment outside of the womb disqualifies Christ in enduring the complete human experience thus his humanity is put into question. Wasn't this all hashed out in the 5th century anyway?

klutedavid said:

No father, this disqualifies the lineage. I stick with how Paul appraised it, born into the house of David.

In one way Jesus is a descendant of David, yet we have God in human form. So the human lineage is debatable at best. How could anyone claim Jesus was a descendant of David, because Jesus did not originate at Bethlehem.

I believe the best way to look at this issue is to look at Jesus in the heavenly realms. That's because that is who He is, our Lord.

Click to expand...

yeah but he was also a man. So you have to look at both ways.

The topic's theological views are highly illogical. Anyone can claim Jesus was a descendant of David based on biology. The No Father doesn't disqualify it at all because it biologically comes from the mother.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why it matters whether or not He had Mary's DNA. But I thought the general idea is that the Bible says He was from the strain of King David and therefore a King by Jewish standards. Matthew 1:1

devin553344 said:

I'm having a hard time figuring out why it matters whether or not He had Mary's DNA. But I thought the general idea is that the Bible says He was from the strain of King David and therefore a King by Jewish standards. Matthew 1:1

Click to expand...

Matthew 1 is Joseph's genealogy or the Royal line. There is technically no genetic connection in this particular line listed because it was referring to Joseph's descendants.

Luke 3 is Mary's genealogy or the physical genetic line of Jesus Christ.

Why does it matter that Jesus had Mary's DNA?
Because Jesus could not take on horse flesh to die for our sins.
If God made some humans on some other planet, He could not take their DNA and use it to die for our sins here. 1 Peter 2:24 says, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed"

Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world. He can only do that if He had the same DNA as them. For it is by His stripes we are healed. For Jesus was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. It only works if He is identical to us physically. It's why He came down into the flesh of a man in the first place. He came to redeem mankind that descended from Adam and not some other humans on another hypothetical planet somewhere.

johnnywong said:

But a lot of problems arise for over thousands of years around the problems of Sinless Mary and worshipping Mary...

Click to expand...

johnnywong said:

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.

Click to expand...

If I may also add..Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed before the foundation of the world. I will just throw in that tidbit.
Blessings

DamianWarS said:

an embryo would suggest conception outside of the womb. I think it is of the utmost importance that Christ is conceived in the womb for him to qualify as fully human. Even the slightest moment outside of the womb disqualifies Christ in enduring the complete human experience thus his humanity is put into question. Wasn't this all hashed out in the 5th century anyway?

Click to expand...

Are you saying that people who were conceived outside the womb are not "fully human"? That is very insulting.

topher694 said:

Cool! That must have been an amazing thing to see! Question. How'd you get inside her womb without her noticing?

Click to expand...

Jason0047 said:

Matthew 1 is Joseph's genealogy or the Royal line. There is technically no genetic connection in this particular line listed because it was referring to Joseph's descendants.

Luke 3 is Mary's genealogy or the physical genetic line of Jesus Christ.

Why does it matter that Jesus had Mary's DNA?
Because Jesus could not take on horse flesh to die for our sins.
If God made some humans on some other planet, He could not take their DNA and use it to die for our sins here. 1 Peter 2:24 says, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed"

Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world. He can only do that if He had the same DNA as them. For it is by His stripes we are healed. For Jesus was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. It only works if he identical to us physically. It's why He came down into the flesh of a man in the first place. He came to redeem mankind that descended from Adam and not some other humans on another hypothetical planet somewhere.

Click to expand...

It seems like simple conjecture to me and perhaps it's non discernible to mankind. I just posted in another thread that Jesus was in the form of God Philippians 2:6-7 and not a man at all like we are men.

Maria Billingsley said:

If I may also add..Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed before the foundation of the world. I will just throw in that tidbit.
Blessings

Click to expand...

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.

Dkh587 said:

Here’s more food for thought: if the Messiah was not a human(Adam in the Hebrew) like us, he could not have died.

The Word became flesh. We are flesh... he became one of us, yet he did not sin.

Click to expand...

I believe there are two possibilities in explaining the Incarnation.

If you are interested, you can check that out in this CF thread here.

May God bless you.

devin553344 said:

It seems like simple conjecture to me and perhaps it's non discernible to mankind. I just posted in another thread that Jesus was in the form of God Philippians 2:6-7 and not a man at all like we are men.

Click to expand...

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.

Of course Jesus has DNA from Mary. It was her ovum that God caused to be fertilized.

JacksBratt said:

That's impossible. Mary had no sexual relations with Joseph before the birth of Christ. His DNA would never ever have been involved..... impossible.

Click to expand...

Jesus' DNA had to come from somewhere. Presumably half of it came from God. I'm simply saying that it would make at least as much sense for him to use Joseph's DNA as the pattern as to create it from scratch. That way it would be actual human DNA, which is consistent with Jesus being fully human.

Nothing is said about the mechanism of the conception. Obviously anything we say is speculation. But God could well have used actual sperm from Joseph (or anyone else, but Joseph seems to make the most sense). I'm sure God could manage to get it to the right place.

Jon Osterman said:

I wasn't suggesting that Mary wasn't a virgin. If God can implant an embryo with DNA into Mary's womb by supernatural (i.e. not sexual) means, then He can easily make that DNA a combination of Mary's and Joseph's.

Click to expand...

Jon Osterman said:

In fact, it seems the obvious thing to do.

Click to expand...

It may seem like the "obvious" thing to do for you... To me... it is unnecessary and totally impossible...

It's a non issue and nothing relies on it.

hedrick said:

Jesus' DNA had to come from somewhere. Presumably half of it came from God. I'm simply saying that it would make at least as much sense for him to use Joseph's DNA as the pattern as to create it from scratch. That way it would be actual human DNA, which is consistent with Jesus being fully human.

Click to expand...

Why?

Jesus would have mitochondrial DNA from Mary as everyone has the DNA from their mother.. their mothers mother... their mothers mothers mothers mother... and so on.. in the mitochondria.

They also get DNA from their mother and father.

Was Joseph the father.. nope.... no Joseph DNA... no need..... God is His father, not Joseph.

JacksBratt said:

Why?

Jesus would have mitochondrial DNA from Mary as everyone has the DNA from their mother.. their mothers mother... their mothers mothers mothers mother... and so on.. in the mitochondria.

They also get DNA from their mother and father.

Was Joseph the father.. nope.... no Joseph DNA... no need..... God is His father, not Joseph.

Click to expand...

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.

johnnywong said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe. In any case, the y chromosome had to be miraculous.

Sanoy said:

What was the authors purpose in listing the geneology if it had no relation to Jesus?

Click to expand...

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.

DamianWarS said:

dna is something inherited and we all trace back to a common ancestor. If Christ did not participate in this and has un-inherited human dna I would think it would put into question his humanity as a whole and begins to sounds like docetism

Click to expand...

This is why I think the "conceived by the Holy Ghost" does not involve God somehow "magically" inserting "other than human" DNA into the mix. I believe obviously a miraculous transformation of the DNA already present to create a XY genome occurred. It had to. But I still believe 100% of Jesus's DNA came from Mary. The rearrangement of that genetic material came on an atomic level.

It's like changing water into wine. All the atomic elements in water can make wine; you'd just have to "pop apart" O2 molecules to make carbon molecules and obviously that's not something we can do.