DNA source

[Fireinfolding]

Yep, totaly Gnostic Heresy!

Couldn't be that your assesment was the least bit hasty?

Maybe he thought Uphill was asking for "gnostic" (kind of) knowledge by way of "imput"?

Just busting

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, gotta watch out for that heretic bumper, Uphill!
Didja get some sleep between 4:30 & now?
You're lookin' pretty fresh.
(Don't hold that bird over your bike seat for long, if he just ate.)

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yeah, gotta watch out for that heretic bumper, Uphill!
Didja get some sleep between 4:30 & now?
You're lookin' pretty fresh.
(Don't hold that bird over your bike seat for long, if he just ate.)

The things you say get me roaring!

I dont feed him (he's not real he's stuffed). He's just photography candy lol

I'm awake (not fresh) Im actually tired (rare) and theres nothing going on here to keep me awake

Heretic bumper!!

 

[Rick Otto]

Glad I can make ya laff.
Startin' w/my mom, I have a bad history of makin' women cry.
(might be sumpin' in my DNA? - Dad's genes? )

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'm thinking Thats the topic anyways lol

 

[Uphill Battle]

Exactly.


There are dubious tendencies towards Gnostic Heresy in some of the arguments being called upon in this thread. the Gnostics argued that Jesus was not a true fleshly son of Mary, but some sort of special creation.


But Jesus was NOT a counterfeit human, created in the LIKENESS of man He was MADE man. He is the true genetic son of Mary, and through her he claims his ancestry from David and from Adam - all of which is fully attested in scripture.

post 1 is a question.

and you'll note, I've stated what I believe.

Post #5 is a bump.

Post 35 is someone you are supposedly in agreement with.


could it be that your heresy-gun was loaded, and you needed someone to shoot at?

 

[Rick Otto]

I never thought He was "fleshly".
I always thought He was a little bit skinny.

 

[Uphill Battle]

If asking questions makes you a heretic, all the Apostles were Heretics too.... just a thought.

 

[Uphill Battle]

ah, guess we can disregard it.

It must be a heritic smart missle.

you know, fire it, and forget it.

but it missed the mark, we're safe now.

 

[Axion]

If asking questions makes you a heretic, all the Apostles were Heretics too.... just a thought.

Misquoting me. I didn't call anyone a heretic.

I said that some of the arguments being edged forward here had tendencies towards gnostic heresy. This is true. The themes being raised are Gnostic in basis. ie that Jesus was not truly of the flesh (DNA) of Mary, but somehow "specially created" in her womb.

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

I just can't wrap my head around it as being neccessary that Mary's DNA was used for the incarnation, as is said.
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.

Now when observing conversations it always seems to be steered (or reverted) "backwards" as if is needed to protect a singular woman (in the flesh) both to revere and protect her "person" (known after the flesh, in her singularity) rather then after the Spirit (knowing no one after the flesh).

You may say this is just "questioning" but it is questioning along Gnostic lines. What need is there to question Jesus's real incarnation from the Virgin Mary?

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't need to.
Besides, didn't she have Davidic lineage?
At any rate, God's prophecy in Genesis said "seed of the woman", "seed out of nothing".

 

[Catherineanne]

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?

It is really weird trying to marry the newest of our technologies and its language, to ancient belief. However ...

First of all, Our Lord was the child of Our Lady, and so he certainly derived maternal DNA from her. This is important because he is born a Jew, and Jewish identity is inherited through the mother. Without Our Lady, Christ could not trace his lineage and identity back to David. So that bit is certain.

The other side is less certain.

As I understand it (which is not far!!!) Parthenogenesis is a rare but not totally unknown event in nature. In human parthenogenesis, the woman spontaneously conceives and bears a child which is genetically identical to her; it shares her DNA exactly, because there is no input from a man. In genetic terms it is her twin, and her parents provide its parental DNA. In other words, the grandparents provide the two halves of the DNA coding.

The difference in the case of Our Lord is that he is male. In parthenogenesis, the child is an exact replica of the mother, and is necessarily female.

We can know that Our Lord derived his maternal DNA from Mary. But we also know that there was another input, from the Holy Spirit, which means that his DNA was not identical to hers, and which gave him his male identity. Christ did not have Mary's DNA alone.

Therefore, uniquely among humankind, Christ bears both human DNA and something from somewhere else. The limitations of language prevent me from saying he had DNA from the Holy Spirit, because that is meaningless; that which is born of the spirit is spirit. But he certainly had something other than simply Mary's DNA.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

Forgot this bit. This is not just poor Christology, it is poor human biology. However, in context of first century beliefs and medicine, it is understandable.

The ancient Greeks (and by extension everyone else around who was listening, because they were very influential) believed that the human child was contained in the sperm, which was a miniature humunculous. The man planted this humunculous into the woman, who was no more related to the child than a field is related to the vegetable planted in it; that is, it is essential to provide the basis for growth, but does not contribute to its identity.

Along with this thinking, the Greeks believed male children to be perfect, and female children to be an abberation or to be misbegotten in some way. In fact, our own knowledge of genetics shows that it is the other way round.

Clearly, ancient Jewish thought did not concur with this, but wherever we find in Scripture any mention of any woman being a vessel, this is a contamination from Greek thought, and it is wrong.

As we know, the man and woman contribute equally to any child, and to call any woman on earth 'merely a vessel' to her child is a gross insult. To say it of Our Lady is far worse.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Misquoting me. I didn't call anyone a heretic.

I said that some of the arguments being edged forward here had tendencies towards gnostic heresy. This is true. The themes being raised are Gnostic in basis. ie that Jesus was not truly of the flesh (DNA) of Mary, but somehow "specially created" in her womb.





You may say this is just "questioning" but it is questioning along Gnostic lines. What need is there to question Jesus's real incarnation from the Virgin Mary?

because I like questioning things.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Forgot this bit. This is not just poor Christology, it is poor human biology. However, in context of first century beliefs and medicine, it is understandable.

The ancient Greeks (and by extension everyone else around who was listening, because they were very influential) believed that the human child was contained in the sperm, which was a miniature humunculous. The man planted this humunculous into the woman, who was no more related to the child than a field is related to the vegetable planted in it; that is, it is essential to provide the basis for growth, but does not contribute to its identity.

Along with this thinking, the Greeks believed male children to be perfect, and female children to be an abberation or to be misbegotten in some way. In fact, our own knowledge of genetics shows that it is the other way round.

Clearly, ancient Jewish thought did not concur with this, but wherever we find in Scripture any mention of any woman being a vessel, this is a contamination from Greek thought, and it is wrong.

As we know, the man and woman contribute equally to any child, and to call any woman on earth 'merely a vessel' to her child is a gross insult. To say it of Our Lady is far worse.

thanks for that.

I don't believe in the "mere vessel" line of thought anyways.

the whole point of the thread was , hey, some people say this.

so why is it so crucial that he share Mary's DNA?

some people have answered very nicely.

some have picked up their heresy stick.

 

[Axion]

thanks for that.

I don't believe in the "mere vessel" line of thought anyways.

the whole point of the thread was , hey, some people say this.

so why is it so crucial that he share Mary's DNA?

some people have answered very nicely.

some have picked up their heresy stick.

I'm sorry but, overly defensive reactions aside, if the trail of argument being raised starts pointing towards various Gnostic heresies, I have a right to point this out. You may not like it being pointed out. But many people drift into positions that deny basic Christian fundamentals through expanding on "what ifs."


Its best to head this off at the pass, and point it out straight away.

 

[Oblio]

so why is it so crucial that he share Mary's DNA?

some people have answered very nicely.

some have picked up their heresy stick.

What is crucial is that He share her nature, which being human, is our nature. A natural outgrowth of this is that He share her DNA, as He is fully human, as is His mother. It is the the direct or implied denial that Christ took on the human nature given to Him by the Theotokos that is heresy. I would place questioning His DNA source as an implied denial, certainly not as grevious as the direct denial by those who would claim that she was only a vessel that gave birth to Jesus.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What is crucial is that He share her nature, which being human, is our nature. A natural outgrowth of this is that He share her DNA, as He is fully human, as is His mother. It is the the direct or implied denial that Christ took on the human nature given to Him by the Theotokos that is heresy. I would place questioning His DNA source as an implied denial, certainly not as grevious as the direct denial by those who would claim that she was only a vessel that gave birth to Jesus.

the point was, Ob, not denying Jesus his human nature. The theoretical argument that I read, and was wondering about (but don't believe, as I have stated numerous times, despite the continued allusion to heretical thinking) is that as Adam had his DNA created, so too, could Christ. Not that Christ was created, as he is eternal, but that the DNA used was not Mary's. Now, I don't think that's so, how could he call her mother otherwise?

but I still think it a case of jumping the gun to play the heresy card, without actually considering what it is that I'm saying.

specifically since I've been quite clear that I don't believe it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I don't need to.
Besides, didn't she have Davidic lineage?
At any rate, God's prophecy in Genesis said "seed of the woman", "seed out of nothing".

Yes..but more specifically
'The Woman AND Her Seed...'

What is enmity and why does the woman have it along with her seed? Rhetorical question because I dont wish to digress.

Seed out of nothing?

Even God is something...and Mary was someone.

Not sure where 'seed of nothing' comes from.

 

[Oblio]

the point was, Ob, not denying Jesus his human nature. The theoretical argument that I read, and was wondering about (but don't believe, as I have stated numerous times, despite the continued allusion to heretical thinking) is that as Adam had his DNA created, so too, could Christ. Not that Christ was created, as he is eternal, but that the DNA used was not Mary's. Now, I don't think that's so, how could he call her mother otherwise?

but I still think it a case of jumping the gun to play the heresy card, without actually considering what it is that I'm saying.

specifically since I've been quite clear that I don't believe it.

Forgive me if I implied that you were doing so, (as it is clear you are not), it was not my intent, I was speaking in the general case. Unfortunately, this is necessary at TMBFKACF as the seeds of heresy are sprouting and growing as tares among the wheat.