DNA source

[Uphill Battle]

Ok, Just was thinking.

It is said that it is poor Christology to think that Mary may have been merely a "vessel." and that Jesus derived his humanity from the DNA of Mary.

Now, I have always believe that. Never had much problem with it. I read something however, that causes me to question it.

Someone was expounding on the Old Adam vs. the New Adam. Adam (old) created by God, without any former source of DNA. The author then expounded that new Adam, would also have the "creation" of God, although God the Son was never created, that the physical form WAS created in Marys womb. (the author went on to state that this does not detract from the fully God fully Man truth, as the full divinity and full humanity would be in evidence in either case.)

Is it not possible that Jesus' incarnation was not genetically linked to Mary at all?

I cannot argue againt it, I can't know what God did on the Matter.

What scripture states is the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and she conceived. It doesn't state the exact genetic method God chose to use.

I'd like to know

1) for those who state that Jesus for CERTAIN derived his DNA from Mary, how we know that with certainty?

and

2) why it is so important that he did?


I cannot argue for or against, I'm just interested.

(for the record, I do not deny the Motherhood of Mary for Jesus.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

not even ONE?!?

 

[lionroar0]

1) for those who state that Jesus for CERTAIN derived his DNA from Mary, how we know that with certainty?

Academically speaking we can't. We would have to do DNA testing on both the Mary and Jesus.

And both of them are not available for DNA testing. Then we would would "know."

2) why it is so important that he did?

We can look at the evidence and reach a resonable conclusion.

He was with a human body with a human nature.

Both came from somewhere.

We know that He was born of the Virgin Mary.

(Occam's razor.)

Where Jesus would have a human source for His flesh and human nature.(genes.)

Could God have made body for Himself out of mud and make it human like He created adam? Yes He could have but, then He would not be like us born of women with a genetic code that comes from both our parents.

Peace

 

[Uphill Battle]

Academically speaking we can't. We would have to do DNA testing on both the Mary and Jesus.

And both of them are not available for DNA testing. Then we would would "know."

fair enough.

We can look at the evidence and reach a resonable conclusion.

I'm not so sure that the evidence points one way or another though.

He was with a human body with a human nature.

sure...

Both came from somewhere.

no so sure. God had created matter Ex Nihilo before. Could he not have created the DNA structure for the incarnation as well?

We know that He was born of the Virgin Mary.

true.

(Occam's razor.)

I never use this. I've found that the simplist explaination is typically NOT the truth, not the other way around.

Where Jesus would have a human source for His flesh and human nature.(genes.)

Could God have made body for Himself out of mud and make it human like He created adam? Yes He could have but, then He would not be like us born of women with a genetic code that comes from both our parents.

Peace

but that's just the point, Christ did not have two physical parents, so technically God had to create at least some DNA for the conception of Christ; He had no earthly father. (and in truth, the "Y" required for a Male child would not be present in the female, that is determined by the male, which only muddies the water.)

Like I said, I'm not sure one way or another, I just can't wrap my head around it as being neccessary that Mary's DNA was used for the incarnation, as is said.

 

[Uphill Battle]

bump for input!

 

[lionroar0]

no so sure. God had created matter Ex Nihilo before. Could he not have created the DNA structure for the incarnation as well?

Yes. But why go through the whole trouble of being born in nine months? Why go through being a baby to adult hood? He could have appeared as a fully grown man. Why put the three of them through all the hassle?

I never use this. I've found that the simplist explaination is typically NOT the truth, not the other way around.

Fari enough.

but that's just the point, Christ did not have two physical parents, so technically God had to create at least some DNA for the conception of Christ; He had no earthly father. (and in truth, the "Y" required for a Male child would not be present in the female, that is determined by the male, which only muddies the water.)

That's the mystery of the Incarnation. We will never truly know how He became human in purely academic secular sence., because He became human through a supernatural way.

Also He was born of the line of King David and the NT has His geneology and it was prophesied(sp?)

Like I said, I'm not sure one way or another, I just can't wrap my head around it as being neccessary that Mary's DNA was used for the incarnation, as is said.

Because He was born woman just like the rest of us were.

I don't consider it a valid argument for this reason.

As a purely secular academic execise:

We can't know that His DNA came from Her, just as we can't know that His DNA did not come from Mary.

He is examining a matter of faith as a purely secularar academic exercise.

We know what the early church said in this regard, but they also did not have access to their genetic material, because the technology was not there.

Peace

 

[Tyndale]

bump for input!

I'm afraid I can't be much of a help in this Uphill Battle. I just find it amazing how some people can be convinced that humans can become infallible on Earth. Without this arrogant invention of authority on Earth, we wouldn't have to endure the pain of elevating other humans above or on an equal level to Christ. It saddens me!

 

[prodromos]

The first human, Adam, was formed from the dust of the earth. Every other human from that time on has taken their flesh ultimately from Adam. Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs and God had no trouble with those pesky X and Y chromosomes then, did He! Why then would He have a problem forming Christ from Mary's flesh?

 

[Uphill Battle]

The first human, Adam, was formed from the dust of the earth. Every other human from that time on has taken their flesh ultimately from Adam. Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs and God had no trouble with those pesky X and Y chromosomes then, did He! Why then would He have a problem forming Christ from Mary's flesh?

that's my point... he had not problem creating ex nihlio, why then would it be a problem that Jesus was (not created) but had his phyical form for the incarnation created as well?

Lionroars post was fair minded, I just don't see evidence one or the other, and it's been asserted quite vhemently on a number of occasions that Jesus MUST share DNA with Mary.

 

[Kristos]

For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. St Athanasius - "On the Incarnation"

I would not seek to scientifically define it more. The faith seems pretty clear. Proof is not the foundation of faith.

 

[prodromos]

that's my point... he had not problem creating ex nihlio, why then would it be a problem that Jesus was (not created) but had his phyical form for the incarnation created as well?

Lionroars post was fair minded, I just don't see evidence one or the other, and it's been asserted quite vhemently on a number of occasions that Jesus MUST share DNA with Mary.

It had to be OUR nature that Christ took to the grave and then raised back to life, otherwise Christ's death and resurrection would have saved not a single one of us from death. We all inherit our nature from Adam through our parents, and Christ inherited His from His mother.

Have you read "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius?

 

[PassthePeace1]

It had to be OUR nature that Christ took to the grave and then raised back to life, otherwise Christ's death and resurrection would have saved not a single one of us from death. We all inherit our nature from Adam through our parents, and Christ inherited His from His mother.

Have you read "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius?

Great point, Prodromos..

That's an execellent read, UpHill...I highly recommend it. Here is a link to the OP, where we read through it in the Patristic forum....link to the document is in the OP.

[OPEN] Reading Athanasius: Week One - Christian Forums

 

[Epiphoskei]

This whole DNA thing doesn't sit well with me at all... can we look at this from a slightly more.. antiquarian perspective for a moment?
We modern human beings tend to think of ourselves (rightly) as more scientifically advanced, but this leads us to (wrongly) think of ourselves as more philosophically advanced. I would put forward that issues like the substance of Jesus' body are in their context best when we think like Jesus' contemporaries thought.

If the issue of Jesus recieving his bodily substance from the substance of his mother is at all important, then it was important to His contemporaries and God would have provided a way for them to understand it without understanding of modern era Genetics. If the issue is unimportant, we have no hope of ever finding an answer at all, because God would not have given it, and without God's help, issues like the incarnation are beyond our understanding. Thus only one avenue of inquiry lies open to us.

Now, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit caused Mary to concieve and bear a child, Jesus. At first glance, that looks like God prompted her body to produce the body of Jesus. Do we have any reason to believe that an ancient would have looked at the word "concieve" differently? I don't know enough to hazard an answer to that question.

 

[Renton405]

Jesus was both fully man and fully God.. so probably his DNA is of Marys.. by human nature..Jesus needed our human nature for the passion to be in full effect for all mankind
did they test the shroud?

 

[Oblio]

The author then expounded that new Adam, would also have the "creation" of God, although God the Son was never created, that the physical form WAS created in Marys womb.

The author is incorrect.

One of the reasons that Christ was born of a virgin is to show that Christ the God-man was not created as is each of us are when conceived of a human mother and father. At the time of conception we are created, by God, from our mother and father. No such event happened with Christ.

 

[IamAdopted]

Jesus became the Son of Man so we could become the sons of God.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Jesus became the Son of Man so we could become the sons of God.

Finally, we agree on something!

 

[Ave Maria]

I believe that Jesus did have Mary's DNA because he was her son.

 

[Rick Otto]

parthenogenesis

parthenogenesis (pär"thunōjen'usis) [key][Gr.,=virgin birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid. In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs to the female workers and queens. It has also been observed in some snakes, fish, and monitor lizards. The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.
The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued. Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development. Numerous mechanical and chemical agents have been used to stimulate unfertilized eggs. In 1936, Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian (rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

I don't understand where you're going with that.