DID JESUS HAVE A Y-CHROMOSOME?

[Michie]

In a thought-provoking conversation, Jordan raises a fascinating question about the possibility of conducting genetic studies using the blood from Eucharistic Miracles. Specifically, she wonders about the Y chromosome and its potential to provide physical evidence of Jesus's divinity.

Father Spitzer responds with clarity, addressing both the theological and scientific dimensions of this inquiry. He begins by clarifying that while Jesus was indeed born with a Y chromosome, which is characteristic of male human nature, it does not directly correlate with his divine nature as the Son of God. The Y chromosome, in this context, pertains solely to Jesus's human incarnation.

The question then arises: Can genetic testing be conducted on the blood from Eucharistic Miracles, such as the Shroud of Turin? Father Spitzer explains that such testing has not been performed due to significant challenges. For instance, the DNA on the Shroud of Turin has been extensively contaminated over the centuries, making any definitive association with Jesus scientifically unreliable.

He points out that Ray Rogers and others attempted to study the Shroud's DNA but encountered insurmountable contamination issues. Therefore, while the idea of scientifically proving Jesus's divinity through genetic analysis is intriguing, it remains beyond current scientific capabilities.

From a theological perspective, Father Spitzer encourages a balanced approach. He suggests that while we may not have conclusive scientific proof now, faith offers ample evidence through historical records, Eucharistic miracles, and the profound impact of Jesus's life and teachings on humanity.

Theological and Scientific Perspectives​

Continued below.

Did Jesus Have a Y-Chromosome?

Did Jesus Have a Y Chromosome? Since he was born of the Virgin Mary, where did it come from? Fr. Spitzer responds to this question.

www.magiscenter.com

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

In a thought-provoking conversation, Jordan raises a fascinating question about the possibility of conducting genetic studies using the blood from Eucharistic Miracles. Specifically, she wonders about the Y chromosome and its potential to provide physical evidence of Jesus's divinity.

Father Spitzer responds with clarity, addressing both the theological and scientific dimensions of this inquiry. He begins by clarifying that while Jesus was indeed born with a Y chromosome, which is characteristic of male human nature, it does not directly correlate with his divine nature as the Son of God. The Y chromosome, in this context, pertains solely to Jesus's human incarnation.

The question then arises: Can genetic testing be conducted on the blood from Eucharistic Miracles, such as the Shroud of Turin? Father Spitzer explains that such testing has not been performed due to significant challenges. For instance, the DNA on the Shroud of Turin has been extensively contaminated over the centuries, making any definitive association with Jesus scientifically unreliable.

He points out that Ray Rogers and others attempted to study the Shroud's DNA but encountered insurmountable contamination issues. Therefore, while the idea of scientifically proving Jesus's divinity through genetic analysis is intriguing, it remains beyond current scientific capabilities.

From a theological perspective, Father Spitzer encourages a balanced approach. He suggests that while we may not have conclusive scientific proof now, faith offers ample evidence through historical records, Eucharistic miracles, and the profound impact of Jesus's life and teachings on humanity.

Theological and Scientific Perspectives​

Continued below.

Did Jesus Have a Y-Chromosome?

Did Jesus Have a Y Chromosome? Since he was born of the Virgin Mary, where did it come from? Fr. Spitzer responds to this question.

www.magiscenter.com

Yeshua was likely Druze...

Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud - Scientific Reports

The Turin Shroud is traditionally considered to be the burial cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death approximately 2000 years ago. Here, we report the main findings from the analysis of genomic DNA extracted from dust particles vacuumed from parts of the body image...

www.nature.com

 

[RileyG]

Some people claimed Jesus was transgender because he didn’t have a human father. I find that blasphemous.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

In a thought-provoking conversation, Jordan raises a fascinating question about the possibility of conducting genetic studies using the blood from Eucharistic Miracles. Specifically, she wonders about the Y chromosome and its potential to provide physical evidence of Jesus's divinity.

Father Spitzer responds with clarity, addressing both the theological and scientific dimensions of this inquiry. He begins by clarifying that while Jesus was indeed born with a Y chromosome, which is characteristic of male human nature, it does not directly correlate with his divine nature as the Son of God. The Y chromosome, in this context, pertains solely to Jesus's human incarnation.

The question then arises: Can genetic testing be conducted on the blood from Eucharistic Miracles, such as the Shroud of Turin? Father Spitzer explains that such testing has not been performed due to significant challenges. For instance, the DNA on the Shroud of Turin has been extensively contaminated over the centuries, making any definitive association with Jesus scientifically unreliable.

He points out that Ray Rogers and others attempted to study the Shroud's DNA but encountered insurmountable contamination issues. Therefore, while the idea of scientifically proving Jesus's divinity through genetic analysis is intriguing, it remains beyond current scientific capabilities.

From a theological perspective, Father Spitzer encourages a balanced approach. He suggests that while we may not have conclusive scientific proof now, faith offers ample evidence through historical records, Eucharistic miracles, and the profound impact of Jesus's life and teachings on humanity.

Theological and Scientific Perspectives​

Continued below.

Did Jesus Have a Y-Chromosome?

Did Jesus Have a Y Chromosome? Since he was born of the Virgin Mary, where did it come from? Fr. Spitzer responds to this question.

www.magiscenter.com

Our Lord was circumcised the eighth day and taken to the temple after the days of purification with the sacrifice of two turtle doves. Simeon would not have accepted Our Lord for the sacrifice in the Temple were He not male

Every MALE that opens the womb is holy to the Lord and shall have a sacrifice made of two turtles doves or two young pigeons

After they filled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to their home town of Nazareth. With the testimony of scripture, do you really have to see the Y chromosome oh ms doubting Thomasina?

God will have mercy on her if she really does need to see it, but it’s not necessary

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Some people claimed Jesus was transgender because he didn’t have a human father. I find that blasphemous.

Some people claim Mary had other children. What do you call a woman that has children by two different fathers while both fathers are still alive? An adulteress. Mary having other children would be adultery. That is blasphemous

What do you call a person that sins? A slave to sin. Scripture calls Mary the enemy of Satan. How can she be an enemy and a slave at the same time? Denying the Immaculate conception is blasphemous

Did Jesus come to Earth through Mary in the hypostatic union? That is our faith. Denying Mary’s divine maternity is blasphemous.

What is an idol? An object made by human hands that is to be adored as God. What is Mary? A creature conceived in the mind of God made by His Hands and full of His grace for the purpose of bringing forth His Son as redeemer of the world. To call Mary an idol is blasphemous.
If we worshiped her as God it would be blasphemous, but to honor her as God’s mother is proper respect
Would God not honor His own command to honor His mother? Given that her Son is God, could she be anything less than queen of heaven and Earth? To say that God would not obey His own command to honor His mother would be blasphemous.

Where do all these thoughts come from? The enemy of the woman. Who is that? I don’t know. What does God say? Satan. And now you known the rest of the story

 

[RileyG]

The enemy of the woman is Satan. AKA the great beast, the red dragon mentioned in Revelation 12.

 

[RDKirk]

Most straightforward to me:

Mary was the second wife of the widower Joseph (who already had children by his earlier wife). God impregnated Mary with a complete zygote, a wholly new creation like Adam. Mary had no other children. Joseph had died by the time Jesus began His ministry.

 

[RileyG]

Most straightforward to me:

Mary was the second wife of the widower Joseph (who already had children by his earlier wife). God impregnated Mary with a complete zygote, a wholly new creation like Adam. She had no other children.

Agreed.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeshua was likely Druze...

Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud - Scientific Reports

The Turin Shroud is traditionally considered to be the burial cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death approximately 2000 years ago. Here, we report the main findings from the analysis of genomic DNA extracted from dust particles vacuumed from parts of the body image...

www.nature.com

Druze is an outgrowth of Ismaili Shiism that didn't exist before the 11th century AD, so that's not possible.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Druze is an outgrowth of Ismaili Shiism that didn't exist before the 11th century AD, so that's not possible.

Druze DNA is still DNA...so whatever DNA that is from the 1st century is Druze DNA now. Not a religion, DNA. The Druze claim Jethro as their founder. So it could be interpreted that Yeshua could be a descendant of Moshe through Zipporah, Jethro's daughter. So it IS possible...

 

[dzheremi]

Druze DNA is still DNA...so whatever DNA that is from the 1st century is Druze DNA now. Not a religion, DNA. The Druze claim Jethro as their founder. So it could be interpreted that Yeshua could be a descendant of Moshe through Zipporah, Jethro's daughter. So it IS possible...

The Druze can claim whatever they want. That doesn't change how DNA works. When the article you linked stated that XYZ haplogroup is primarily found in Druze people, that's a testament to the fact that they're an endogamous ethnoreligious group, not saying that He has "Druze DNA". As you seem to recognize in this reply, DNA does not have a religion, and again, even if it did, it wouldn't make sense to say that He has "Druze DNA", given that the Druze didn't exist until over a millennia after His incarnation.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Druze can claim whatever they want. That doesn't change how DNA works. When the article you linked stated that XYZ haplogroup is primarily found in Druze people, that's a testament to the fact that they're an endogamous ethnoreligious group, not saying that He has "Druze DNA". As you seem to recognize in this reply, DNA does not have a religion, and again, even if it did, it wouldn't make sense to say that He has "Druze DNA", given that the Druze didn't exist until over a millennia after His incarnation.

Oy vey...the same DNA from the shroud is found in the Druze of today...that was my point.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Some people claim Mary had other children. What do you call a woman that has children by two different fathers while both fathers are still alive? An adulteress. Mary having other children would be adultery. That is blasphemous

This logic is questionable.

Adultery has to do with sex, not children. Technically, Mary never had sex with God (that was a hard sentence to type out) so, no adultery.

Aside from that, "blasphemous" is completely the wrong word here. Blasphemy has to do with questioning the divinity of a deity.

Mary isn't a deity.

The word you're looking of is "heresy"

What do you call a person that sins? A slave to sin. Scripture calls Mary the enemy of Satan. How can she be an enemy and a slave at the same time?

The logic on this one is just completely broken.

Even given Mary being born with original sin wouldn't make her a sinner per se, since original sin wasn't committed by her, (or anyone else for that matter)

You should really think these little tautologies through before you commit them to magnetic ink.

Denying the Immaculate conception is blasphemous

Again: heresy.

Did Jesus come to Earth through Mary in the hypostatic union? That is our faith. Denying Mary’s divine maternity is blasphemous.

I'll give you this one, even though it's a little strident.

(Also, and meaning nothing by it - you sort of denied the divine maternity by stating that Mary would be an adulterer if she had other children.)

What is an idol? An object made by human hands that is to be adored as God. What is Mary? A creature conceived in the mind of God made by His Hands and full of His grace for the purpose of bringing forth His Son as redeemer of the world. To call Mary an idol is blasphemous.

This isn't even heresy - it's just theologically incorrect.

If we worshiped her as God it would be blasphemous,

No, it would be polytheism.

(I know your going for some "Counsel of Trent" kind of thing here but, really, these are all examples of different dogmatic and theological offenses)

but to honor her as God’s mother is proper respect
Would God not honor His own command to honor His mother? Given that her Son is God, could she be anything less than queen of heaven and Earth?

Uh, yes she could be.

(She could be anything God decided she was) You're walking a REALLY close line here on Catholic dogma.

To say that God would not obey His own command to honor His mother would be blasphemous.

.....Huh?

(This one doesn't even make sense)

Where do all these thoughts come from? The enemy of the woman. Who is that? I don’t know. What does God say? Satan. And now you known the rest of the story

And now we've moved from Council of Trent to Paul Harvey.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

This logic is questionable.

Adultery has to do with sex, not children. Technically, Mary never had sex with God (that was a hard sentence to type out) so, no adultery.

Aside from that, "blasphemous" is completely the wrong word here. Blasphemy has to do with questioning the divinity of a deity.

Mary isn't a deity.

The word you're looking of is "heresy"

The logic on this one is just completely broken.

Even given Mary being born with original sin wouldn't make her a sinner per se, since original sin wasn't committed by her, (or anyone else for that matter)

You should really think these little tautologies through before you commit them to magnetic ink.

Again: heresy.

I'll give you this one, even though it's a little strident.

(Also, and meaning nothing by it - you sort of denied the divine maternity by stating that Mary would be an adulterer if she had other children.)


This isn't even heresy - it's just theologically incorrect.


No, it would be polytheism.

(I know your going for some "Counsel of Trent" kind of thing here but, really, these are all examples of different dogmatic and theological offenses)


Uh, yes she could be.

(She could be anything God decided she was) You're walking a REALLY close line here on Catholic dogma.

.....Huh?

(This one doesn't even make sense)

And now we've moved from Council of Trent to Paul Harvey.

Always good to see you Charlie. You are bringing human logic to theology and asking God to bow
to it. Not to be unexpected. I agree that I do the same. I am willing to be corrected, are you?

Our Lady appeared to Sr Lucia in Fatima in 1925 to reveal to her the 5 first Saturday devotion to the Immaculate Heart. The five first Saturdays are for the intention of making reparations to the immaculate heart due to blasphemies and ingratitudes toward Our Lady

The five blasphemies (word used in the Fatima apparition approved by the Church ) against the immaculate heart are

Blasphemy against the immaculate conception
Blasphemy against her perpetual virginity
Blasphemy against her divine maternity
Teaching children to hate or discard Mary
Desecration of her sacred images

I’ll give you that I imperfectly tried to decribe these blasphemies, but it is factual to describe them as blasphemies according to Our Lady’s communication to Sr Lucia which was approved by the Church. I agree that this is a private revelation and not required to give an ascent of faith, but it is approved by the Church as worthy of belief. You are not required to believe them, but to contradict them is not wise

God did not have carnal relations wIth Mary, as He is pure spirit. The Holy Spirit did overshadow her and the result of that union was a child. Any other man to have sexual relations with her would be adultery. Even if you do not agree or do not understand, I could hear Satan screaming from hell for all eternity, God redeemed man through an adulteress. That is so absurd as to be unworthy of contemplation. Mary is a perpetual virgin. Satan’s mouth still be stopped, not set free to blaspheme for all eternity
There is Biblical Typology that shows Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant. Any man was struck dead if he touched to Ark of the Old Covenant, let alone have sex with the New

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Always good to see you Charlie. You are bringing human logic to theology and asking God to bow
to it. Not to be unexpected. I agree that I do the same. I am willing to be corrected, are you?

Our Lady appeared to Sr Lucia in Fatima in 1925 to reveal to her the 5 first Saturday devotion to the Immaculate Heart. The five first Saturdays are for the intention of making reparations to the immaculate heart due to blasphemies and ingratitudes toward Our Lady

The five blasphemies (word used in the Fatima apparition approved by the Church ) against the immaculate heart are

Blasphemy against the immaculate conception
Blasphemy against her perpetual virginity
Blasphemy against her divine maternity
Teaching children to hate or discard Mary
Desecration of her sacred images

I’ll give you that I imperfectly tried to decribe these blasphemies, but it is factual to describe them as blasphemies according to Our Lady’s communication to Sr Lucia which was approved by the Church. I agree that this is a private revelation and not required to give an ascent of faith, but it is approved by the Church as worthy of belief. You are not required to believe them, but to contradict them is not wise

God did not have carnal relations wIth Mary, as He is pure spirit. The Holy Spirit did overshadow her and the result of that union was a child. Any other man to have sexual relations with her would be adultery. Even if you do not agree or do not understand, I could hear Satan screaming from hell for all eternity, God redeemed man through an adulteress. That is so absurd as to be unworthy of contemplation. Mary is a perpetual virgin. Satan’s mouth still be stopped, not set free to blaspheme for all eternity
There is Biblical Typology that shows Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant. Any man was struck dead if he touched to Ark of the Old Covenant, let alone have sex with the New

BWaP:

Because we get along so well, I'm going to admit to you that I (like a lot of other Catholics) have issues with Fatima. I'll add this to the list.

Having said that:

I'm not against doing research, (I keep 3 journals FULL of research of various kinds - I'm a college trained engineer after all) so let me go look this up.

{Time passes}
huh.....I need to check something....

{More time passes}
Ok.....
Let me write this down....

Well,

The H-O-M-E explains the difference between blasphemy and heresy the way many other sources do as well

Blasphemy vs Heresy: Understanding The Nuance​

Short quote from the above link

When it comes to religious beliefs, two concepts that are often misunderstood and confused are blasphemy and heresy. The two terms actually have quite different meanings, so it is important to understand the difference between them.

Blasphemy is the act of showing contempt or disrespect for God or sacred things. It can be expressed in a variety of ways, from verbal abuse to physical action. Examples of blasphemy include profanity, irreverent behavior toward holy symbols, and desecration of sacred texts. It has been illegal in many societies for centuries, with punishments ranging from fines to death.

Heresy, on the other hand, refers to a belief or opinion that does not agree with the established beliefs or customs of a particular religion. This could mean rejecting some fundamental principles of the faith or introducing new interpretations of scripture. During its early centuries, Christianity dealt with many heresies such as docetism, Montanism, adoptionism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism and gnosticism. While this kind of disagreement was seen as dangerous by some religious authorities at the time (and in some cases still is) it is important to remember that heresy is distinct from blasphemy because it does not involve any form of disrespect towards God or sacred things – just a disagreement with certain aspects of faith and doctrine.

On the other hand the Catholic Encyclopedia defines this differently

This is a short quote (you may want to read the entire entry on this one)

MEANING​

While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Francisco Suárez as "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God : (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.

At best, based on what I've found, I think referring to the Fatima reparations as "Blasphemies" is a stretch and might be just flat incorrect under the Catholic definition to blasphemy. The primary definition of blasphemy is a offense against God, although other sacred things can be involved, under common usage.

The Church is very clear that it's an offense against God, period. Why they would use blasphemy in this case is unclear to me.

But, hey, who am I to correct the Church on anything.

If you want to refer to these things as blasphemies, go nuts.

And thank you for the research project. It was ....
... interesting.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

BWaP:

Because we get along so well, I'm going to admit to you that I (like a lot of other Catholics) have issues with Fatima. I'll add this to the list.

Having said that:

I'm not against doing research, (I keep 3 journals FULL of research of various kinds - I'm a college trained engineer after all) so let me go look this up.

{Time passes}
huh.....I need to check something....

{More time passes}
Ok.....
Let me write this down....

Well,

The H-O-M-E explains the difference between blasphemy and heresy the way many other sources do as well

Blasphemy vs Heresy: Understanding The Nuance​

Short quote from the above link



On the other hand the Catholic Encyclopedia defines this differently

This is a short quote (you may want to read the entire entry on this one)


At best, based on what I've found, I think referring to the Fatima reparations as "Blasphemies" is a stretch and might be just flat incorrect under the Catholic definition to blasphemy. The primary definition of blasphemy is a offense against God, although other sacred things can be involved, under common usage.

The Church is very clear that it's an offense against God, period. Why they would use blasphemy in this case is unclear to me.

But, hey, who am I to correct the Church on anything.

If you want to refer to these things as blasphemies, go nuts.

And thank you for the research project. It was ....
... interesting.

I see your strict

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I see your strict

But not a grammar NAZI

I have found it's best to be precise when discussing theology.

Especially Catholic theology

 

[Miss Shelby]

Cosmic Charlie said:

Adultery has to do with sex, not children.

Wrong. Jesus said if you look at someone with lust you commit adultery.

Whosoever, then, looketh on a woman to lust after her, that is, so looks on her as to lust, and cast about to obtain, he is rightly said to commit adultery with her in his heart.

Get your mind out of the gutter Charlie.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Cosmic Charlie said:

Adultery has to do with sex, not children.

Wrong. Jesus said if you look at someone with lust you commit adultery.




Get your mind out of the gutter Charlie.

Huh ?

Looking at someone with lust is, like, sexual

but not reproductive.

I mean,

I mean,

If you could have a child simply by looking at someone with lust in your heart -

- no one would ever bother having sex. Which is messy and hurts (at least at my age)

(I haven't been ignoring you Shel, I just didn't know how to break the ice and start a conversation. But it's good to see ya)

 

[boughtwithaprice]

But not a grammar NAZI

I have found it's best to be precise when discussing theology.

Especially Catholic theology

The difference you make between blasphemy and heresy deserves further study

The definition you provide is that blasphemy can include both God and sacred things

Mary is sacred, as she is God’s mother by God’s choice. God told us how the redeemer would come into the world. We did not make it up. To speak against her is no longer heresy or difference of opinion, according to your definition, it is directly speaking against God, and therefore blasphemy

Even in Jesus day, He defined blasphemy to the men that said it was by Beelzebub that He cast out demons. He said blasphemy against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot.
I view heresy as a form of blaspheming the Son of Man. It is out of ignorance (difference of opinion), but it is still blasphemy. It can be forgiven, but it does not make it any less sinful
The same way people blaspheme the Mother of God. Whether strictly defined as heresy or blasphemy it is a sin that can be forgiven if done in ignorance. Just because it can be forgiven, does not make it any less blasphemous or sinful

The five blasphemies against Mary cause God to grieve because those that blaspheme do not understand what God has done for us. It grieves the immaculate heart of Mary, as she has to listen to all the tripe from those whom her Son loves. They may be forgiven, but it still hurts

How many men like to hear bad things said against their mother falsely, even in ignorance? How do you think God feels?