DNA source

[WarriorAngel]

BTW, to believe in the absense that DNA was necessary, is called the Monothelitism heresy.

I do believe.
Nevertheless, I think if ppl would study the ancient heresies, they might be quite enlightened about the history of Christianity.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

In theory this is possible, and John the Baptist provides the evidence for it. He points to stones on the ground and says that God could, if he wanted to, turn them into sons of Abraham. In other words, it is within God's power to invest stones with DNA derived from Abraham, and create human beings.

Whether God actually did such a thing in creating Our Lord is not evidenced anywhere, however. And as you rightly say, as the son of his mother, Christ would have shared at least some of his DNA with her.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I would think His DNA was solely from her side of the family.

His Divinity doesnt have DNA...that would mean God has been created.
DNA is a code [in humans] that continues to reproduce itself as cells die off.

God doesn't have DNA, so all the DNA Jesus had was from His humanity. SO all His DNA was shared from His Mom.
Unlike us 100% humans...we have two sets of DNA from human parents. [mother and father]
Jesus had one parent who was human, one Who begot Him Who is Divine.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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.

fair enough, and no apology is required, Oblio.

BTW, to believe in the absense that DNA was necessary, is called the Monothelitism heresy.

I do believe.
Nevertheless, I think if ppl would study the ancient heresies, they might be quite enlightened about the history of Christianity.

Monothelitism teaches that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of Christology, which teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures.

doesn't say anything about DNA at all.

I would think His DNA was solely from her side of the family.

His Divinity doesnt have DNA...that would mean God has been created.
DNA is a code [in humans] that continues to reproduce itself as cells die off.

God doesn't have DNA, so all the DNA Jesus had was from His humanity. SO all His DNA was shared from His Mom.
Unlike us 100% humans...we have two sets of DNA from human parents. [mother and father]
Jesus had one parent who was human, one Who begot Him Who is Divine.

If his DNA was soley that of Mary, He would not be a He.

 

[WarriorAngel]

fair enough, and no apology is required, Oblio.





Monothelitism teaches that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of Christology, which teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures.

doesn't say anything about DNA at all.

If his DNA was soley that of Mary, He would not be a He.

1) DNA is a relatively new science...as compared to the ancient teachings so they didnt figure it in to the discussions. SO you wont find too many subjects on His DNA. DNA is just a group of nucleic acids of the human cells and what characteristics one has through their DNA.
Its a footprint or code of our personal human make up.


2) I said He got all His DNA from His Mother's side. I didn't say He has or owns her specific DNA...and she was left with none.

DO you understanding DNA? Just curious.
WE all have our own personal 'code' of characteristics that make up who we are.
For instance, DNA is what makes up our cells so it makes up who we are.

Jesus can only get DNA from His Mother. IE, she passed on her HUMAN traits to Him...from Her Being. He did not remove her DNA off of her leaving her with none. I am not sure, but I think that is what you were suggesting.

AS for X or Y chromosomes... that is what determines if we are male or female.
Chromosomes come in pairs adding up to 46.

The bodies individual blue print might be easiest to think about this.

 

[Catherineanne]

God doesn't have DNA, so all the DNA Jesus had was from His humanity. SO all His DNA was shared from His Mom.

If this were the case, Jesus would have been a girl.

As I have already said, in spontaneous parthenogenesis, the child is genetically identical to the mother, and is always female.

Our Lord's gender is proof that there was input from God through the Holy Spirit. The church teaches that he is fully divine, as well as fully human, and I am happy with that.

 

[prodromos]

If this were the case, Jesus would have been a girl.

As I have already said, in spontaneous parthenogenesis, the child is genetically identical to the mother, and is always female.

This would only be valid if the Incarnation was spontaneous parthenogenesis. How is Christ taking His flesh from His mother any different to how God took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve. Eve got her flesh, her DNA, from Adam, yet she was a woman. Christ got His flesh, His DNA, from Mary, yet He was a man.

 

[Catherineanne]

This would only be valid if the Incarnation was spontaneous parthenogenesis.

That is what I am saying. However rare parthenogenesis is, it does happen. But Christ's conception is not something that happens. It was a one off event, by the will of God, the action of the Holy Spirit and the consent of Our Lady.

How is Christ taking His flesh from His mother any different to how God took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve. Eve got her flesh, her DNA, from Adam, yet she was a woman. Christ got His flesh, His DNA, from Mary, yet He was a man.

Because the Bible says it is different. That is all the evidence we have for any of these events, and so that is what we have to rely on.

How do you know that Eve shared Adam's DNA? If she did, she would have been male, not female. You really cannot make these kind of claims based on nothing.

Why would God need to use magic of the kind you describe? He has explained as much as we need to know about how Christ was conceived. That explanation has been accepted for 2000 years, and now you find it insufficient?