Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.How do you know all of this? Jesus is fully human as well as fully God.
His blood line had to come from a human.
Upvote
0
Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.How do you know all of this? Jesus is fully human as well as fully God.
His blood line had to come from a human.
Where are you getting this from?Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.
Adam did not exist before being created.
Jesus existed before being born in Bethlehem.
DNA does not enter into the equation because Jesus was God who then became a man.
Jesus by definition is not of Adam's lineage because Jesus is the creator of Adam's lineage.
You are viewing Jesus in utterly human form
Jesus came to us in the flesh but Jesus is not defined by the flesh as we are.
Correct!
4 types of creationt of human being
Adams from dust
Eve from rib
We from phyiscal mother and father
Jesus perfect human DNA from Holy Spirit alone and Born sinless Human for the first time in Human history! Amen!
Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.
Mary's DNA didn't have Y. To get a Y, either God has to create it, or it comes from a male. One suggestion here was that got converted Mary's DNA into a Y. I think that classifies as God making it.No, only having Mary's DNA would not make Jesus female.... That is all about Chromosomes. XX is female.... XY is male.
I agree that God could create a human. However such a human wouldn't be "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3)Jesus is fully human in my theory. Holy spirit created complete human DNA but not inherited DNA.
I don't see your point here. God became man at a certain point in time. This passage in Scripture describes that development.Yikes!
LOGOS
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
You are probably right in so far as you are talking about their traditions.......I was commenting on the portion about it being the body and blood of Christ.....I believe the last sentence only applies to most non-traditional (for a lack of a better categorization) Protestants, ie later denominations or non-denominational churches. The early Protestant Churches / Reformed churches still hold to the Real Presence.
Born into the house of David not from the house of David.I agree that God could create a human. However such a human wouldn't be "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3)
If it was only to establish rights and property why would the author go as far as Adam or Abraham? Can one be in the line of David through adoption? 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 suggests that a foreign son can be adopted to pass on the line and receive the inheritance, but does that give him any rights to become king? It didn't help Ishmael, being the first born, to become Abrams heir because Sarah gave birth to a more legitimate heir. And it seems that the birthright, the double portion, is guaranteed to the first born of the father despite his wishes to do otherwise(Deut. 21:15-17), and Joseph does go on to have a first born son of his own (With the exception of Catholic belief).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.
Correct the crowd had no power over Jesus and they could not throw Him over the cliff. Nor did the devil have any control or power over Jesus.The storm could never have capsized the boat with Jesus in it.
I believe that Jesus' recalling (perhaps recitation) of Psalm 22 was the mechanism by which He caused His flesh to be subject to death. I don't think that without His own will to permit it that the nails would even have been able to penetrate His skin.
You said that Jesus did not have a human father, but you failed to mention the paternal lineage of Jesus?
Was Jesus from Mary or was Jesus from above?
Correct.I know.
The eternal Word existed, John 1:1-3; the second person of the Trinity.
The baby was the Old Testament YHWH and YHWH walked in the garden, Adam could hear His steps.The baby who was given the human name, Jesus, existed in Mary's womb, and then obviously when he was born. Before this, the Word was only God - in Jesus, he was God AND Man.
YHWH in human form but not a blood relative of any man. Jesus had distinct lineage and that lineage was not from the dust.Yes, a human being; like us in every way (except without sin.) Human beings have DNA.
Now you have it correct.The only other alternative is that Jesus was placed as a fully grown Spirit child into Mary's womb - and she carried him, unnecessarily, for 9 months.
That is exactly what your genetic claim regarding DNA was all about.I wasn't talking about a genetic, blood connection to Adam.
Correct and I agree.No I'm not. I have said, several times, that the divine, eternal word was made flesh - and was given the name Jesus.
Good because Jesus took on human form but was never a living soul like Adam.I never said anything about being defined by the flesh.
The Son did not come into the world.God chose that his Son would come into the world as a human being - a real, flesh and blood baby, born in the way that all babies are born.
This is your error, you desperately want Jesus to be the apple that did not fall far from the tree.As a baby, and real human being, Jesus had human DNA - and genes, btw, that determined hair and eye colour etc.
If he didn't get it from Mary, who did he get it from?
The author doesn't know anything about DNA, no one at that time did. I am making a text critical objection to the OP, who bares the burden of proof. There would have to be some indication that the author was trying to inform the audience that Mary was a surrogate, and that concept would have to be already in the minds of the audience to understand it. What the author intends is our first consideration here, not creating solutions to problems.Actually, you would need to provide an ancient reference asserting that Jesus had DNA from Mary.
That concept is modern--the ancients believed that the seed was wholly from the man--that the woman merely provided a gestation environment.
In the case of Jesus, they were correct. The Holy Spirit did not place His sperm in Mary to inseminate one of her ova, He placed the complete zygote of Jesus into Mary.
Which is actually the only thing that makes sense.
They speak in riddles and present a paradox.Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.
There are five main truths with which the creed of Chalcedon summarized the biblical teaching on the Incarnation:
1. Jesus has two natures — He is God and man.
2. Each nature is full and complete — He is fully God and fully man.
3. Each nature remains distinct.
4. Christ is only one Person.
5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.
If you want to convince them of something other than their church doctrine has taught them, this DNA thing isn't going to do it. You need a different approach, convincing people of things comes by way of the Holy Spirit and He shows up when truth is spoken from scripture . Faith comes by hearing ( if they will listen, which is very unlikely). Speaking of which, has the Holy Spirit assigned you this task ? If not then nobody should be listening.No , only a suggestion.
But i want to releas thousands of people who may have the bondage to worship Mary because of the potential subconcsious belief of Sinless Mary
Now you have it correct.
Mary carried Jesus, bore Jesus, but Jesus was not from here. God predestined this event to occur, God saw it as necessary for Jesus to be born in human form.
Jesus was half God?
You need to have a chat with an inquisitor.