Jesus has no DNA from Mary

[prodromos]

You are making the same mistake the Jews and Christ's disciples were making. The Lord would correct you as well - and has, if you would but listen.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." John 6:63

Since this is off topic I'm not going to waste any time addressing your errors in this thread, just simply point out that when Christ said "the flesh profits nothing", He is clearly not referring to His flesh. His disciples were thinking in carnal terms, because Christ had not yet revealed to them just how they were going to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they thought He was talking about cutting off pieces of His flesh and giving it to them to eat.

 

[His student]

Since this is off topic I'm not going to waste any time addressing your errors in this thread, just simply point out that when Christ said "the flesh profits nothing", He is clearly not referring to His flesh. His disciples were thinking in carnal terms, because Christ had not yet revealed to them just how they were going to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they thought He was talking about cutting off pieces of His flesh and giving it to them to eat.

If you think He was talking about a future special group of priests walking to and fro and saying secret words which change wafers and juice to flesh and blood - then doling them out to add to or accomplish basic salvation in some way - go ahead with your beliefs.

As for me and my household - we will rest in the simplicity of a gospel that says that Jesus Christ paid the complete price for our sins and that anything we do along church tradition lines does not add in any way to the price He paid for our sins.

If you believe that you are "achieving salvation" through various actions and rites in this life - you are, IMO, believing in and preaching another gospel than the one I have believed in for my salvation.

Good luck with that. Seriously - I hope to see you in Heaven in spite of what I consider un-scriptural doctrine concerning the achievement of basic salvation.

If you simply believe that something rather "mystical" is going on when we take communion - I have no problem with that. But if that activity has any efficacious merit in your view concerning achieving Heaven vs. Hell - I believe you have pass from simply a difference of opinion on the Eucharist and into the realm of preaching a different gospel.

It is my sincere desire that I meet every Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, J.W. and whatever other different "Christian" belief system there may be on the other side and share a glass of wine around the table of the Lord - while praising Him for His unfathomable grace toward us who would have perished without His giving His beautiful life for us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He used it.
But every time he shows us he ask his father first.
This means he delicate the power temporarily to the father in order to set us an example to follow the steps of Jesus.

Scripture please.

 

[prodromos]

At a very early date the Christian church developed the theory / dogma of Original Sin based largely on the mythology of the creation as found in Genesis. Not realizing any better, they accepted the story as literal history. We all know, or should know, that the theory of Original Sin is based on the notion that we are a fallen race, unworthy of God because of the sin of our primeval parents Adam and Eve. St Augustine further developed the theory by stating that the stain of the Original Sin was passed on to the children through the seed of the father.

This concept further confirmed the notion in the early church that sex was inherently evil and to be discouraged except for procreation. What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin. Moreover, the rather earthy Jewish attitude toward sex lacks entirely the Christian distaste for it.

The notion that Original Sin was passed on through the father's seed, somewhat like a spiritual HIV virus, turns out to have been inherently flawed. We must realize, that at that point in history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tantamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even homosexual acts were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

Now when we link these notions to the Nativity story we get further complications. Mary was believed to have become pregnant through the agency of God. God of course contributed the seed (genetic material) and Mary's role for the next nine months was as a nurturing womb. Jesus was born sinless because of course God was sinless. The stain of the Original Sin did not afflict him. It did not matter that Mary was afflicted with the sin.

This entire theory fell apart about several cemturies ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

This realization seems to have provided a good deal of the impetus for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary through her egg contributed to the genetic make up of Jesus then she too could pass on Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception solved this problem quite neatly by stating that Mary herself must have been concieved immaculately (without sin) through the agency of the grace of Jesus somehow applied retroactively.

If this has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I apologize because I have not had the opportunity to read the entire thread.

The Scriptures clearly make reference to "her seed", so no.

 

[Mathetes66]

After having perused this thread from beginning to end, it never ceases to amaze me concerning how such a wide variety of interpretations occur, some very heretical/heterodox.

The other thing is that almost all but one other demonstrated in a very wonderful fashion the lack of proof of the premise of this OP/thread. He even admits he has no proof or Scriptural evidence but it is just a theory of his & his speculation. I appreciate his honesty. I suspect he was hoping to find others with some definite proofs & a Scriptural basis for what is the truth as found in Scripture. I hope to give some that is Scriptural & factual.

Scripture should be interpreted in the normal literal narrative & historical & grammatical fashion unless Scripture says otherwise. And that understanding must pay close attention to the context for the actual use of words, both immediate & throughout Scripture. The audience being spoken to & their normal understanding at that time is also an important issue.

Scripture begins with truths & going through the Bible these truths are often progressive in their revelation & the fulfillment of prophecy reveals more. Some things are hidden in the OT but revealed in the NT.

Most people on here show some acknowledgement of these things. But it became evident that a number of people do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God nor are Spirit illumined to understand God's revelation.

We all are human at times & our understanding changes as we mature in Christ & learn how to walk in the Spirit & have our faculties TRAINED TO DISCERN WHAT IS GOOD & WHAT IS EVIL & TO DISCERN THE DECEPTIVE SPIRITS.

Our background in how we are taught the Scriptures and/or traditions tends to influence our thinking. So that being said, I am going to attempt by the grace of God & an examination of Scripture as well as pertinent comments from others in this thread & comments from the ancient Christians as to what is the Scriptural truth as Christians have known it to be & to 'stand for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.'

The first simple truth that has been taught by the apostles & prophets & Jesus is that Jesus is both a man, an actual human being that walked on this earth & got tired & was thirsty & hungry, etc.--& that Jesus is also God--the 2nd Person of the Trinity/Godhead. Both are true according to Scripture & the ancient teachings of Christianity passed down to us from of old.

The Son of God's divinity is from eternity, before creation. (John 1:1-18; 17:5; Prov 30:1-4; etc.)

Christ's humanity had an origin when He fulfilled the many prophecies predicting His incarnation. (Gal 4:4,5; Micah 5:2; Is 9:6; Isaiah 53, etc.)

The whole of salvation depends on both of these being true.

Daniel prophesied of the timing of it & that is why many in Israel looked for this promised 'Anointed One' called the Son of Man--at the time Jesus was physically born as a baby human being. The Magi from the East had also ascertained the timing as well & came to worship this 'King.' No wonder there was such anticipation!

He also was fulfilling the predictions of Moses concerning 'the Prophet' that would come. People got excited about this, too.

He was also fulfilling the prophecies concerning the Messiah, a physical descendant of the Jewish king David, who would suffer for the sins of the world & who would also have a kingdom He would reign over, a kingdom without end.

Some thought John the Baptist was one or more of these & who was He pointing to as the fulfillment of his preaching & message? They soon found out.

I think most people writing in this thread have no problem seeing Jesus as Divine, as having the same nature & essence that is unique only to the one true living God. Most believe the Scriptures teach God is Triune, three distinct Persons sharing the same one nature that is uniquely true of the one living God of Scripture.

There have been some heterodox thoughts concerning this foundational teaching of Christianity in this thread, some that others have pointed out, including Gnosticism, oneness theology, Valentinianism, monophysitism.

I will not dwell much on this for the above reasons. What I will seek to focus on is the humanity of the person Jesus the Christ, which is where most of the differences are.

A quick one to deal with is whether Mary was a surrogate mother only with no DNA being transmitted vs an actual physical mother of the physical human being named Jesus.

To do this we need to define what surrogacy is & the history of it & see if it applies to Mary.

https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/surrogacy-101/history-of-surrogacy/

This website gives a good summary. I went to various other ones but this gave more historical detail. If you read through it, you will see the typical appeal to the earliest one being in the Bible with Abraham, Sarah & Hagar. I will examine that to see if it is indeed an actual example or not. It appears Ishmael was born around 1860BC.

The next one mentioned is a huge jump all the way to 1884AD. Then there is another big jump to the 1970's. Then another to 1984-86. The last statistical one between 2004-2008 in this article showed about 5000 children were born via surrogacy.

Wow. Eyeopening huh? Surrogacy is NOT the normal method of having children all down through history until the present. Let's do a quick check on the number of babies born JUST in the USA during 2004-2008 the years when 5000 surrogate babies were born.

Births in the U.S. 1990-2017 | Statistic

21.09 million babies born & only 5000 by surrogacy. You figure out what percent that is compared to all the babies conceived & born in the natural way. Miniscule is a word that comes to mind. I didn't even do the whole world population!

Second, surrogacy is something mankind does & chooses. God since the beginning designed marriage of one man & one woman for life & that they would be fruitful & multiply & fill the earth (Gen 1:26-28). Mankind has been doing that ever since that first marriage of Adam & Eve. God desires godly offspring (seed) from that physical union of the two BECOMING one flesh. (Malachi 2:13-15). That command, covenant & pattern of (leave, cleave, one flesh, covenant) God hasn't changed. That is the way God designed it but man chooses their own devices, as we see the sad state of relationships in the world today.

OK. In my opinion, was the first Biblical example given above an example of surrogacy? I don't believe it is for the following reasons, based on examining Scripture. You will have to decide for yourself.

When Abraham was 75 years old, God first promised Him a son, a descendant & a nation from his own body & a promised land, in the Abrahamic covenant (land, seed, blessing). It becomes more progressive in revelation as time goes on, even into the NT where Paul explains it in revealed detail. Here is where it started & was first promised. (Gen 11:10-12:9)

God told him to leave Haran & go to a land He would show him (Canaan) & he obeyed. Abram had 2 brothers, Haran & Nahor & Haran begot Lot then died. Abram & Nahor took wives. Gen 11:30 states Sarai was barren & had no children.

After traveling in the land of Canaan, Abram & Sarai go to Egypt where God sends plagues to Pharaoh because he took Sarai, thinking she was Abram's sister not his wife. When it was discovered, he sent them away & they went back to Canaan. He & Lot parted ways. The LORD then reiterated the covenant again in Gen 13, adding a few more details. Abram settles at Mamre in Hebron. Then he rescues his nephew Lot in a kings' war & meets Melchizedek.

God tells Abram He is his shield & exceeding great reward! Abraham laments he has no child. God says one FROM HIS OWN BODY will be his heir. When God showed him the stars & said so shall your descendants be, it is here that Abram believes in YaHWeH & God imputes (accounts iit) to him the righteousness of God. Again God reminds Abram of the covenant of land, seed, nation & blessing.

We arrive at Genesis 16. They have lived for a second time in the land of Canaan for 10 years, after first marrying in Ur of the Chaldeans. Then it was living for awhile in Haran. Then in Canaan the first time, then in Egypt. Then in the South & rescuing Lot.

And now it says Sarai still had borne him no children. Decades have gone by. They are getting up in years now. Abram is 85 & Sarai is 75. The promises have been made but no definite time for fulfillment has been told them. Year after year they wait & now they are approaching the time of physically not being able to bear children. You can imagine the heartache for his wife, wanting her own children all these years. None. Empty womb.

She then says that God is the One preventing her from having children. There seems to be little hope so Sarai takes things into her own hands. She asks Abram to please go into her maid. She reasons that PERHAPS I WILL OBTAIN CHILDREN THROUGH HER.

"In the Hebrew it literally means: '"I shall be builded by her," אבנה 'ı̂bāneh, built as the foundation of a house, by the addition of sons or daughters (בנים bānı̂ym or בנית bānôt). She thought she had or wished to have a share in the promise, if not by herself personally, yet through her maid. The faith of Sarah had not yet come fully to the birth. Abram yields to the suggestion of his wife, and complies with the custom of the country. Ten years had elapsed since they had entered the land they were to inherit. Impatience at the long delay leads to an invention of their own for obtaining an heir." Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible)

And Abraham heeds the voice of Sarai. However, Hagar isn't a surrogate having a baby for Sarai. Why? It is because Sarai gives Hagar to be Abraham's WIFE! Now he has two wives!

As his wife Abram goes into her & she conceives & becomes pregnant. Then the perhaps falls all apart. Hagar despises Sarai. She is younger, Sarai beyond childbearing. She comes to regard as Sarai as unworthy of her notice or consideration. It turns to feeling contempt & a deep repugnance for her, being insolent & insulting, probably scorning her attempts to help & becoming rebellious & refusing to follow her instructions (this becomes apparent in 16:9).

She has now been elevated in status as Abram's wife, deserving of the rights & recognition as much as Sarai & not just being a slave anymore. She probably now sees herself & her son as heirs to Abram's vast possessions.

The word for wife for both of them is the same word for wife that Adam uses for Eve, literally meaning woman (womb man, Ishah)

It is unbearable for Sarai so she makes life unbearable for the pregnant Hagar, treating her in a harsh manner. The Hebrew word brings out the meaning as humiliating another, looking down on them & browbeating them, to bring affliction & hurt to them. This now becomes unbearable to Hagar & she runs away.

What is insightful is what Sarai says: "My WRONG be upon you, Abram! (16:5) Now Sarai is blaming Abraham for her troubles.

"The injury done to me by Hagar, who thus wickedly requites my kindness to her, be upon you. i.e. is to be imputed to you; you are the cause of it, because you did not maintain my reputation & repress her arrogance toward me." Matthew Poole

This seems to be the language of passionate irritation, indicating regret of her previous action & a desire to both impute its guilt to, & lay its bitter consequences on, her husband. Jealousy may have entered here, too. She was being wronged & something needed to be done. God was going to judge between the two of them, as to who was in the right.

It appears neither of them were in the right on this one, not trusting the promises of God & waiting. Instead they presumed to take matters into their own hands & now there was chaos & strife in the family.

God goes & finds Hagar after she ran. Apparently Hagar had been praying concerning her affliction & the LORD heard it & told her to name her son with a name meaning that: Ishmael. (16:11)

Again meditate on WHAT God said to her: Hagar, Sarai's MAID--He again shows her what her position is, to return to her mistress & submit yourself to her authority.

But with that difficult decision, two things give her hope: God promises to her that through her son Ishmael, SHE WILL HAVE MULTIPLIED DESCENDANTS, TOO MANY TO COUNT. This wasn't tied into the promise to Abraham but was promised to her.

Second, she has SEEN THE GOD WHO SEES HER! Now she had something to live for & to look forward, knowing the difficulty it would be to go back. With God's trials are His wonderfully great & precious promises!

Sarai now appears to regret what she did & the hope of being built by Hagar appears dashed. She apparently feels vindicated now, with Hagar once again submitting to her authority. Ishmael is born & it appears as I said before that Hagar is raising Ishmael, not Sarai. Ishmael is not dwelling in Sarai & Abram's tent. (Gen 18)

In Genesis 17 we see that 13years have passed. God now reminds Abraham again of His covenant with him & tells him to walk blamelessly before Him. God has seen a change in the past 13 years. He changes the names of Abram to Abraham & Sarai to Sarah. He promises to be with the descendants & to be their God.

God then institutes circumcision as a 'sign' of this covenant. Then God specifically says He will give Abraham a son by Sarah! Abraham has to laugh at this one, thinking they are too old for child bearing. Just as he said about Eliezer of Damascus, so now he says of Ishmael. God says no about Ishmael & reiterates that Sarah will BEAR you a son & to call His name Isaac ('laughter') & the covenant will be established with him as the heir.

God delivers Lot from Sodom & Gomorrah, hearing Abraham's plea's. Then they move to Gerar & King Abimelek took Sarah, when both stated they were sister & brother. God again protects Sarah, watching over her. Abraham prays for healing & opening wombs again (God closed them) & all begin bearing children. It seems they have learned their lesson the second time. And now God opens Sarah's womb! What a mighty God we serve! I am reminded of James 5:7-11 of patiently enduring like the farmer, the prophets & Job. We see God's purpose in sufferings, that He is indeed gracious & merciful.

I will end with Genesis 21 where Hagar & Ishmael are sent away because Ishmael begins mocking Isaac. Sarah steps in right away & tells Abraham to throw them out. She did not want to see this happen again in the family. (see NT Gal 4:21-31 for an allegory of this concerning the two covenants).

He is very displeased with her decision but God intervenes & tells Abraham to listen to Sarah as the promise was to be through Isaac not Ishmael. Yet a nation would be promised to Ishmael because he was the physical offspring of Abraham. I will finish my reasons for why Hagar is not a surrogate. I gave various reasons above and now in Sarah's final words:

Gen 21:10 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.”

Ishmael had truly never been her son; he was Hagar's son. Since she was a wife of Abraham's, he was not going to be Sarah's son nor would Hagar build a foundational house for Sarah through Hagar's offspring. Sarah had finally understood God's covenantal promises to be to her & Abraham, when God gave them a son of promise, a miracle child when they were beyond child bearing years. God stated it was through Isaac that their descendants would be named.

And she prophetically stated what the Apostle Paul reiterates in an allegorical fashion concerning faith in Christ. Paul makes an astute point that is so true today: "At that time, however, the son born by the flesh persecuted the son born by the Spirit. It is the same now.

 

[All4Christ]

Original sin was understood in the Catholic Church because the concept came from the Apostles of Christ. Original sin came from our first parents, Adam and Eve. After Adam and Eve, all of mankind fell into the pit of original sin. Mary was also going to fall into that pit, but it was God who prevented her from falling. He had His hand on her as she was about to fall into original sin, thereby preventing her from falling and preserving her from original sin.

Since the second century, St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus understood Mary to be the second Eve, as the one who undid Eve’s work in bringing humanity into sin. But in order for her to undo Eve's disobedience, she has be on the same equal footing as the first Eve. Like Eve, Mary was created full of grace. But unlike Eve, Mary remained obedient to God. Origen was the first Early Church father who called Mary "Immaculate." While Abraham, Noah, and the prophets were called "righteous", only Mary was called "Immaculate." Many people thought that the "Immaculate Conception" was invented by the Catholic Church in 1854 when it was declared a dogma, but this is false. If it was an invention, there would have been a lot of protests among the Catholics. The reason there were no protests when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in 1854 was because this was a belief that was already accepted for thousands of years.

Why did Orthodox Christians, who were united with Catholics up until the Great Schism, protest so strongly against the immaculate conception if it had been accepted for thousands of years? Why do the Oriental Orthodox (who also once were united with us) disagree with it? And the objection we have is to the immaculate conception, conception being a key word.

Original sin as understood by the early church is different than what is taught today in the West. We can agree to disagree on that point though.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The first Adam was not Spirit, the first Adam was flesh and blood. The first Adam was a created carbon based life form, Adam was not begotten. Adam had the breath of life breathed into him from the life giving Spirit, i.e., the Word (Jesus).

Jesus like Melchizedek had no genealogy, without a carbon based father and mother, because Jesus existed before Bethlehem.

Jesus came from above, Jesus did not originate from or in Mary. Jesus assumed the shell of a carbon based life form, yet Jesus was always the way, the truth, and the life.

Adam was created as a living soul, created in the first instance as flesh and blood, not immortal. Adam was a carbon based life form in a covenant of obedience, breaching this obedience would result in death.

Jesus the messiah was not a created living soul, Jesus was immortal, Jesus was the Spirit. Jesus appeared in this human form, Jesus was not the human form itself. Jesus was not bound by any covenant of obedience, Jesus cannot die.

Mankind and the demonic world must be permitted the power to execute Jesus, because Jesus is above and over these lower realms.

The life giving Spirit appeared in the form of a living soul. The life giving Spirit was not a living soul.

The light of life was never defined as a living soul, the light of life became a living soul for a specific purpose. Jesus is always the resurrection and the LIFE.

Though Jesus could walk on water which is a problem for any carbon based life form.

Jesus was in that human shell but Jesus was not the human shell. Jesus came from above to visit the sons of Adam, Jesus was not from Adam.

When God visited Abraham that was Jesus appearing in human form. Jesus has often in the Old Testament taken on the form of carbon based life forms.

Jesus has always been with us, from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus spoke to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Issac and Jacob.

Christ is above the natural world and is not restrained by the Greek concept of natural law.

Jesus can and did use any life form that He chose to use for a reason. To say that God did not take on any human form in the Old Testament is erroneous.

The Word does not become the Son until Bethlehem. The Word walked in the garden of Eden, the Spirit does not walk.

Your confusing one assumed identity (the Son), with the eternal identity, the Word.

People in the Old Testament saw Jesus in human form, but Jesus never told them His name. Even with Moses, Jesus never really told Moses who He really was, just that He was who He was, the eternal one. That is why Moses refused to look at the burning bush because He knew who was standing there. Moses was standing on Holy ground.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Jesus never changes, the Word is always the Word.

Since you appear to believe Jesus has no human connection to the rest of the human race. I would say you have fallen into heresy.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course, Jesus could be man and God without receiving humanity through a woman, but it wouldn’t cover the entirety of the salvation message if that was the case.

Why not? Provide some premises and a conclusion, please.

 

[RDKirk]

The idea that Jesus shared His mother's DNA would have come about around the time that we discovered DNA existed. The point in arguing that Jesus shares His mother's DNA isn't about "genetics", but about insisting on the historic, orthodox understanding that the Logos became human, God the Word united Himself with us in our humanity--taking on our human nature--through Mary, His mother. Because the Incarnation is about God becoming human, becoming our flesh and blood, becoming our kin. Jesus is a human being, part of the human family of persons.

The first Adam was fully human. Was it impossible for God create another "fully human?"

I want you to answer that.

Obviously none of this suggests that the Holy Spirit "inseminated" anything. Mary conceived her Son without insemination.

So where did the rest of His DNA come from? However the other half of His DNA got bound to Mary's ovum and developed into a zygote, that is still defined by "insemination."

So did God create the second half of DNA and bind it to Mary's ovum?

I want you to answer that.

But Jesus is her Son, and Mary is Jesus' mother. Our Lord Jesus is one of us, a human being, sharing in our humanity, in our mortality, in our weakness. Like us in all ways but without sin. God became one of us in order to heal, rescue, and redeem us, to save us, to restore what was lost and make us whole.

To quote St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Whatever is not assumed is not healed." Gregory wrote this against the Apollinarians who denied that Jesus had a human soul, Gregory's point is simple: If Christ is not fully human, then Christ does not save and heal our full humanity.

Is it impossible for God to create another Adam?

I want you to answer that.

I would argue, if Christ does not properly share in our humanity, then our humanity is lost, that means we are not saved and have no hope of salvation.

No, all that's necessary is that the Second Adam be like the first Adam in all ways, not that He shares the First Adam's DNA.

What you are doing is adding an extension to the doctrines of the early church fathers, saying, in effect, "Based on what we now know, this is what they must have really meant."

And you're teaching that extension as fact when the fact is that they couldn't have really meant something they didn't know.

No, shared humanity does not depend on shared DNA, whether Neanderthal or Cro-Magnan

 

[FireDragon76]

If according to science, a product of "virgin birth" or "parthenogenesis".

The offspring will get ALL its DNA from the mother. Jesus would essentially be a clone of Mary, only much younger.

Non-canon scriptures seem to support the theory, keeping note, having zero knowledge of 21st century genetics. However, the idea is repulsive to the patriarchs of the day and since the Bible is canonized by a patriarchal structure (as opposed to the early Early Christian movement headed by Christ and His disciples), those scriptures were excluded from canon.

There's a lot more going on in Christianity than most Christians care to bother with. It's no suprise, the prophecy given by the Bible, only few will find the truth (would be true even among Christians). Most would be caught up in the worldly form of the religion.

Is it conceivable to have a clone of a mother be male? I am weak on that biology lesson. My understanding is that males and females have different chromosomes. Women have two X chromosomes, men have only one . It's why men are color blind more often, among other things, because women are much more likely to have at least one gene that prevents color blindness.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus has no DNA from Mary, because Mary is a surrogated mother only.

Then there will be no need of Immaculate Conception: the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus.

Gestational surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is implanted in a surrogate, sometimes called a gestational carrier.

Gestational surrogacy may take a number of forms, but in each form the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate.

Holy Spirit created the embryo of Jesus inside Mary.

Johnny:

Genesis 3:15 says that Messiah is of the "seed of the woman."
This is in reference to a woman's reproductive capabilities.
How so?
Well, we see that this is the case for a male in Genesis 38:9.

Warning to the reader. Genesis 38:9 is for mature adult readers only.
Hence, why I will not go into elaborate discussion over Genesis 38:9 on this forum.
The verse speaks for itself in what it means.

In any event, I hope this helps;
And may God bless you.

 

[Mathetes66]

Just a quick correction concerning basic biology as I was a biology major in college. The egg of a woman does NOT have 46 chromosomes; it only has 23, just like the sperm cell.

Meiosis and Formation of Eggs and Sperm

a sperm cell does not make a human being, with only 23 chromosomes. An egg in the woman does not make a human being, with only 23 chromosomes. But the uniting of the two together is called CONCEPTION. Until that happens, you don't have a human being. That is why I oppose abortion all through the pregnancy, for that is truly a human being.

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte & together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

Medicine Net: "Conception: 1. The union of the sperm & the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.

This also gives the consistent normal understanding & definition of conception/conceived.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just a quick correction concerning basic biology as I was a biology major in college. The egg of a woman does NOT have 46 chromosomes; it only has 23, just like the sperm cell.

Meiosis and Formation of Eggs and Sperm

a sperm cell does not make a human being, with only 23 chromosomes. An egg in the woman does not make a human being, with only 23 chromosomes. But the uniting of the two together is called CONCEPTION. Until that happens, you don't have a human being. That is why I oppose abortion all through the pregnancy, for that is truly a human being.

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte & together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

Medicine Net: "Conception: 1. The union of the sperm & the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.

This also gives the consistent normal understanding & definition of conception/conceived.

Right and Mary's conception was a miracle by the Holy Ghost.

"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1:20).

 

[Selene03]

Why did Orthodox Christians, who were united with Catholics up until the Great Schism, protest so strongly against the immaculate conception if it had been accepted for thousands of years? Why do the Oriental Orthodox (who also once were united with us) disagree with it? And the objection we have is to the immaculate conception, conception being a key word.

Original sin as understood by the early church is different than what is taught today in the West. We can agree to disagree on that point though.

It wasn't the Immaculate Conception that broke us apart in 1054. The argument was over papal authority, and then the Filique was what broke the camel's back. The cultural difference between the Greek and Latin may explain why the Catholic and Orthodox view Original sin in a different perspective....a perspective that may be both correct.

 

[PanDeVida]

Jesus has no DNA from Mary, because Mary is a surrogated mother only.

Then there will be no need of Immaculate Conception: the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus.

Gestational surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is implanted in a surrogate, sometimes called a gestational carrier.

Gestational surrogacy may take a number of forms, but in each form the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate.

Holy Spirit created the embryo of Jesus inside Mary.

Johnnywong, aka Jhonny Wrong, lol

First of all, Gestational Surrogacy is a sin to do or to have done and not of God, but of Satan's doing! Now for you to say that God committed sin through Gestational Surrogacy is blasphemous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Usually, we inherit more of our fathers DNA than our mother's and since Christ is both God and Man, the man side of Jesus/Flesh since He had no human father, since Christ was conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit who has no human flesh, the Human flesh of Christ comes entirely from Mary's DNA, therefore, the reason why Mary was so uniquely created aka the Immaculate Conception.

This here is Just another fake news from people trying to bash Catholics, however, the truth is you are not bashing the Mother of God only but God Himself.

May the Lord have mercy on your soul for spreading lies.

Pan De Vida

 

[timewerx]

Is it conceivable to have a clone of a mother be male? I am weak on that biology lesson. My understanding is that males and females have different chromosomes. Women have two X chromosomes, men have only one . It's why men are color blind more often, among other things, because women are much more likely to have at least one gene that prevents color blindness.

If speaking purely out of science, it might be possible but there can be no Y Chromosome (Y can only come from a male gene donor, never from a female). The males of some animal species have X0 Chromosome (Only one chromosome which is "X" but no Y chromosome). This happens in virgin births....among some animals!

However, if this happened in human, the X0 child would be an infertile female (Turner Syndrome) with some male characteristics (still mostly female but can look like a male without medical intervention / surgery)

If Jesus is X0, it's no surprise if He was viewed as a male. He could easily disguise as male as well if needed be. But with X0 chromosome, He would NOT be having a facial hair or only a small amount. No bearded Jesus I'm afraid.

Interesting thing to point out.... Those with Turner Syndrome have webbed necks and other peculiarities that make them look like "fishmen" (aquatic humanoids) in myths and legends. Curious to point out that Jesus has often been symbolized as a fish!

 

[☦Marius☦]

every Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mormon, J.W. and whatever other different "Christian"

Your quotations poison the rest of your message. I truly doubt you would sit at the table with any traditional "Christian" in Good faith. Especially with our priests "walking to and fro and saying secret words which change wafers and juice to flesh and blood". Your understanding of the traditional Christian faith is abysmal at best. No secret words, no "juice"- no walking to and fro merely prostrating before God and praying... Try to be a little less proud of your own (misinformed) belief?

 

[Strong in Him]

True. And he did so without any part of the physical sin tainted body, egg or blood of mary.
He is fully OF the holy Spirit.

And that's where I don't agree with you. That's an interpretation.
"what is conceived in her is from [or of] the Holy Spirit", Matthew 1:20
You are saying that this means: the child that will grow inside Mary is completely foreign to Mary, a being created by the Spirit to look human. You are saying that Jesus has Holy Spirit created blood, bones, hair, cells etc etc - no connection, or resemblance, at all to his Mother.
That is not Scriptural. That is what you have taken the words OF the Holy Spirit to mean.

If that had been the case, then Scripture is wrong.
If that had been the case, Jesus is NOT like us in EVERY way. None of us have divinely created blood, cells or DNA. We inherit things from our parents - NOT sin, it's not a genetic condition - but gifts, talents, physical features etc. We are male or female because of our chromosomes; you're saying both Jesus' X and Y chromosome were provided by God. It would be like Mary gave birth to an alien - something completely foreign to her, created outside, and apart from, her.
If this has been the case, Jesus would NOT have been human. He would have been 100% directly created by God with everything inside him of divine origin. Divine through and through, just created to make it look as if he was a human being. So when Jesus wept over Jerusalem and at Lazarus' grave; just "tears" sent by the Spirit to make it look like he was crying. When they nailed him to the cross and pierced his side after death; just red liquid created by the Spirit to make it look like blood. When Jesus got hungry, tired, thirsty, angry with those in the temple, irritated with the Pharisees, those feelings weren't real; just created to make it seem as though that was what was happening. Why would someone created by God with a God created stomach, need human food to fill that stomach? Why would the Holy Spirit have provided divine cells that were capable of feeling physical pain, needed water and nutrition to exist? Was Jesus only pretending to be in anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane? Why would he mind whether he was nailed to the cross or not; divinely created cells and Spirit bones can surely feel no pain.

Clearly this is nonsense, and unscriptural.
Jesus was 100% human. He wasn't ONLY human, but he was HUMAN.

 

[Strong in Him]

We can get anthing from The Spirit.(including the complete DNA set without any help from Human.

But Scripture doesn't say that Jesus did.

Otherwise, everything about him would have been a deception.
Jesus was hungry? No, God was just making it SEEM that he was hungry, so that Jesus would eat a meal and look like the rest of us.
Jesus was tired? No, God was just asking him to look tired and pretend to sleep so that we would believe that he was human.
Jesus was in pain on the cross? No, God just made him look as though he was, so that would make us believe that he was suffering for us.

Jesus was like us in EVERY way.

 

[Strong in Him]

Begotten not created, this cancels Mary's biological input.

No it doesn't.
Jesus was 100% God and 100% human.
Where did his humanity - and his real blood, bones and flesh - come from if he had no connection at all to Mary? Did God deceive us? Did he create something that just looked like it had human blood etc and felt human emotions, but in fact these were all a divinely created substitute?
How could Jesus be like us in EVERY way if he were not human, but just created to make it seem like he was a human? Did he feel pain, suffering, rejection, loneliness; was he misunderstood and opposed? If yes, then he truly can understand and identify with us when we feel these things because he went through them himself. If no, then God created his tears, feelings of frustration, anger with the Pharisees etc just to make it look as though Jesus were experiencing these things and make him appear to be human - though really he was spirit wrapped in a protective skin.

Unscriptural.