Jesus has no DNA from Mary

[prodromos]

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.
Just as scripture states

Scripture states in Genesis 3:15-15

The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals;
upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”​

 

[Mathetes66]

Firedragon, thanks for your questions on parthenogenesis, often called 'virgin birth.' It is not a real virgin birth but only in name. Man has coined the term and it comes from two Greek words, 'parthenos' meaning virgin and 'genesis' meaning a beginning of something (like title of the book of Genesis, 'in the beginning') or origin, to begin to be or exist. Scientists exaggerate the definition of it. Almost all examples of parthenogenesis end up female, either clones or half clones of the mother. It is man manipulating these females through experimentation that have brought out some examples of male cloning such as with a mouse in Japan & some turkeys. Seems mankind wants to mess with what God has done & designed. God designed male & female for reproduction & proceation & with humans in marriage. That is the normal order of things as God's plan.

But the Y chromosome has to be present in genetic material for there to be a male.

Parthenogenesis genetically eventually leads to inbreeding & no genetic variation unless man manipulates it enough to produce females that can then breed normally. It can often happen to female creatures kept in captivity for a long time, such as Thelma, the first reticulated python. Her offspring were all female from unfertilized eggs. This is obviously rare.

Men determine the sex of a baby depending on whether their sperm is carrying an X or Y chromosome. A female carries two X chromosomes. An X chromosome combines with the mother’s X chromosome to make a baby girl (XX) and a Y chromosome will combine with the mother’s to make a boy (XY). More sperm counts carrying X chromosomes increase the possibility of more baby girls & vice versa.

Parthenogenesis has not occurred in humans. The true virgin birth only occurred once in human history, for a vital specific reason.

 

[Selene03]

Why is it that some people find it difficult to see that Jesus' human DNA came from Mary? Or perhaps, I'm asking the wrong question. Why are some so adamant in trying to deny Jesus' humanity with Mary? What is wrong with having Mary as His mother that some will go through great lengths to suggest that Mary was a surrogate mother. If she was the surrogate mother, then who was the biological mother?

 

[All4Christ]

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.

Certainly the immaculate conception wasn’t what split us. You said that it was held from the early church though, even though it wasn’t dogmatically defined. If that was the case universally, we should be unified in belief on that.

Honestly though, a lot (albeit not all) of our concern with the immaculate conception stems from our difference of beliefs on original sin.

That said, I didn’t mean to get into a debate about this here I think the topic of this thread is a subject where are in agreement in regards to our view of the OP’s premise.

I hope you have a great Sunday!

 

[His student]

I truly doubt you would sit at the table with any traditional "Christian" in Good faith.

I was talking about sitting at the Lord's table on the other side of this life and finding at that time that those who held beliefs I took exception to in this present life on scriptural grounds were actually saved in spite of any wrong doctrine they had practiced during their lives. I thought I made that clear.

Mistaken as you were in what I was saying to "Prodromos" - you are right about one thing. I would have a hard time fellow-shipping in this life with those who preach things contrary to the simple gospel I have trusted in.

Especially with our priests "walking to and fro and saying secret words which change wafers and juice to flesh and blood".

I did not say to the Orthodox person I was talking to that his priests did such things. I was referencing things done in the Roman tradition and simply saying that, if he believed in such things, I had a problem with that.

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...

While I am not highly educated as to all of the beliefs and practices in the Eastern church - I specifically said that I had a problem only with linking any tradition based practices (including the Eucharist) to the simple salvation that is only achieved through a personal and justifying resting in finished work of Christ at Calvary.

It's good that the priests in your church don't claim the same kind of select power the priesthood does in the Roman Catholic church. I did not say that they did. You must have not notice the "if" in my post where I was speaking to "Prodromos".

Not being Orthodox myself - perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to exactly what value those who claim to be priests in your tradition do have to the sanctification of the laity.

Prostrating one's self before the Lord is a good thing. Are you speaking of the priesthood or the laity?

Are you perhaps linking such prostration to turning the elements into the body and blood of the Lord as do the gyrations and many words of priests in the Roman tradition?

So long as you don't link it's practice (by either specially ordained priests or the laity) to achieving salvation in the basic sense of gaining Heaven and avoiding Hell - I have no problem with traditions (including belief in the literal presence of the Lord in the elements - or even the changing of the elements into His body and Blood in some mysterious way).

I simply don't think it's biblical.

As to whether any linking of traditions in your group to basic salvation is part of your system I'll let you tell me. If it does - whether it cancels out salvation by faith alone - I will let the Lord decide. We'll find out on the other side of this life I suppose.

I just know that I wouldn't trade my faith for a tradition or works based faith for all the gold in all the world.

I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted to Him against that day.

Try to be a little less proud of your own (misinformed) belief?

I wouldn't call it pride. But I am very happy that the Holy Spirit has kept me from any doctrine which changes the simple gospel into a salvation achieved by works or traditions.

I am only proud of the Lord for the work He did at Calvary which makes salvation available to every man, woman or child who will but have simple faith in it's sufficiency to guard their soul against the day they meet a Holy God face to face.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

I want you to answer that.

Of course not. But what's possible or not possible isn't the issue. The point of the Incarnation isn't just that God united Himself a human nature, but that God was united with us in our common humanity. Jesus received the same humanity you and I did, that is Jesus is part of the human family. Not a human being apart from the rest of us, but one of us.

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.

I have no idea.

Is it impossible for God to create another Adam?

I want you to answer that.

See above.

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

If Jesus isn't related to us, then He's not one of us. He would be no different than an alien who happens to look human.

The fathers taught that Christ was fully human like us in all ways, but without sin. I don't see how one can reconcile that with an alien Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why is it that some people find it difficult to see that Jesus' human DNA came from Mary? Or perhaps, I'm asking the wrong question. Why are some so adamant in trying to deny Jesus' humanity with Mary? What is wrong with having Mary as His mother that some will go through great lengths to suggest that Mary was a surrogate mother. If she was the surrogate mother, then who was the biological mother?

Here's a quote from theologian Fr. Herbert McCabe,

"This is what John is talking about at the beginning of his Gospel when he calls Jesus the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history - and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human." - Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, p. 104 (emphasis in bold mine)

It is much more comfortable for us if we imagine Christ as Apotheosis, as a man become god; after all "the gods" are up there, powerful, distant, untouchable, that's comfortable. But it's far less comfortable to say that God became man, and came to dwell in pain, weakness, and death. We like the idea divinity, up there, high above the problems of the world--it's this down here part where we struggle, with its ugliness. The Christian religion insists that it is, in fact, right here in the ugliness and weakness down here that God has chosen to dwell and identify with, in Jesus. Should we be surprised that men "who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human" would try to undermine the Incarnation?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mathetes66]

Selene03: Why is it that some people find it difficult to see that Jesus' human DNA came from Mary? Or perhaps, I'm asking the wrong question. Why are some so adamant in trying to deny Jesus' humanity with Mary?

You have revealed some of the key issues in this thread with your questions, Selene & I commend you for your insightful questions. I will address some more on your first question in another post.

A number of people commenting in this thread deny that Jesus was a living, breathing physical human being, that He only 'appeared' to have a physical body but in reality it was spiritual. They deny Jesus came in the flesh.

I John 2:22-25 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father & the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which YOU have HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son & in the Father. These things have I written to you concerning them that seduce you.

I John 4:1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many FALSE prophets have gone out into the world. By this you KNOW the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has COME IN THE FLESH IS FROM GOD & every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist.

2 John 1:7-9 For many DECEIVERS have gone out into the world, REFUSING TO CONFESS the coming of Jesus Christ IN THE FLESH. ANY SUCH PERSON is the deceiver & the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, that you may be fully rewarded. Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does NOT have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father & the Son. If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. Whoever greets such a person shares in his EVIL deeds.

This is heretical teaching was soundly refuted in early Christianity. In fact apostles, taught by our Lord called this false teaching as coming from the SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST. Antichrist means instead of Christ, in place of Christ, a counterfeit christ, of the devil, a demonic doctrine.

This was classic Gnostic teaching that writers of the Bible & early first, second & third century AD Christians & church fathers stood strongly against & exposed as false & not Biblical. It viewed physical matter as inherently evil & spiritual substance as inherently good.

The world presently has a fast growing influence today of Neo-gnosticism & a cry to include all the rejected Gnostic writings that 'should' have been included in the Bible. This resurgence by the devil touts these false gospels, false apostolic writings that directly contradict Holy Scripture. They emphasize the spiritual is good & the flesh evil & you must have this special knowledge (Greek gnosis) to be saved, apart from Christ's sacrificial death on the cross & His shed blood as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

They all have one premise: Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh.

This continually refuted false teaching is called docetism (from Greek word meaning 'to seem like') where Jesus Christ only seemed to have a human body like ours.

What is Docetism?

The problem with Docetism is that it denies the core truths of the gospel, namely, the physical death & bodily resurrection of Christ. If Jesus did not have a real physical body, then He did not really die (Docetism teaches that His suffering on the cross was mere illusion). And, if Jesus had no physical body, He could not have risen bodily from the dead. Without the actual death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have no salvation, we are still in our sins & our faith is futile (I Cor 15:17). Docetism also denies the ascension of Christ (since He had no real body to make the ascent).

"Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body--that he was not really incarnate. This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil--that God could not be associated with matter & that God, being perfect & infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14. This denial of a true incarnation meant that Jesus did not truly suffer on the cross & that He did not bodily rise from the dead." Matt Slick

Docetism must be rejected because it is not a biblical view of Jesus’ nature. In fact, Docetism stands in flat denial of biblical truth. Jesus Christ did not simply appear human (or in a human 'form' as some in this thread assert); He was truly human, as well as truly God.

He came from heaven & took on human flesh & bone & He lived the life of a normal man in this world—a Spirit-filled man, to be sure & a man who always obeyed the Father, but a man nonetheless. His suffering on the cross was real & His death was an actual death. He shed real blood to pay the real price for our real sin in order to grant us real forgiveness & propitiation--the once for all time atonement of Christ that satisfies God's righteous demands & places us in right standing with Him.

Monophysitism has also been mentioned in this thread by a spiritually discerning individual seeing it portrayed by other posters in this thread as supposedly 'orthodox' & the only correct teaching to which we must adhere. It is the heresy which denied the existence both of a human & a divine nature in Our Lord: the Son of Man and the Son of God, existing simultaneously. It surfaced in the 5th & 6th centuries to challenge the true orthodox definition of the two natures (human & divine) of Christ & instead tried to teach there was only a single divine nature.

Again: denial that Jesus has come in the flesh!

Luke 24:36-43 While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them & said, “Peace be with you.” 37But they were startled & frightened, THINKING they had seen a SPIRIT.

“Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do DOUBTS arise in your hearts? LOOK at My hands & My feet. It is I Myself. TOUCH Me & see—for a spirit does NOT have FLESH & BONES, as you see I have.” And when He had said this, He SHOWED THEM His hands & feet. While they were STILL IN DISBELIEF because of their joy & amazement, He asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish & He took it & ATE it in front of them.

Luke 24:44-48 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets & the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And He told them, “This is what is written: The MESSIAH will suffer & RISE from the dead on the third day & in His name repentance & forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. you are WITNESSES of these things.

This is the one true gospel Christians have proclaimed since the time of our Lord's bodily resurrection out from among the dead; not a spiritual resurrection but a bodily one, which all true followers of the biblical Christ hope for as well. Notice what Jesus taught: the Messiah, the prophesied Christ, had a physical body & rose from the dead. All the prophets spoke of this, showing the Messiah would be a physical descendant, from Adam in Genesis & from the prophet & King David, to Malachi.

This is true orthodox teaching, straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself. Even the disciples didn't believe it at first but being eye witnesses to the truth, faithfully proclaimed the gospel & handed it down, even to us BELIEVERS today. See also John 20:19-31 for Jesus' special grace to Thomas unbelief of the bodily resurrection of Christ (Messiah, a physical descendant of King David, rose bodily).

“Unless I see the nail marks in His hands & put my finger where the nails have been & put my hand into His side, I will never believe.” Jesus came...stood among them...“Peace be with you.”

27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here & LOOK at My hands. Reach out your hand & put it into My side. Stop unbelieving & believe.” And Thomas answered & SAID TO HIM, "My Lord & my God." Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; BLESSED are those who have NOT seen & yet have BELIEVED.”

Oh Hallelujah for the peace of our Lord that calms our fears & dispels our unbelief & doubts. He has risen! He has risen indeed!

My prayer is that those writing in this thread who teach against Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, being a physical human man, would see the truth of what Jesus actually said about Himself & would repent & believe the one true gospel & be saved.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That concept is modern--the ancients believed that the seed was wholly from the man--that the woman merely provided a gestation environment.

Just because the ancients believed something; (or were claimed to believe something - it was duly pointed out in Chronicles that they did not believe women were just a gestation chamber.) yet that doesn't mean what the ancients believed was correct.

Look at the ancient understanding of medicine. We understand infectious disease through germs and viruses. They believed that your body's humors were out of wack and this is why you were sick. Granted there is some general truth to that. If your immune system is not functioning well, you will get sick. Yet, even in other cases, if it is functioning well, you may still get sick. The system can be overwhelmed, depending on what happened to the organism. Severe injury where massive infection sets in, usually kills the organism.

So there are people walking around today who share some of Jesus' DNA.

"Not really". There are descendants of Mary and Joseph who obviously have some of Mary's DNA; (which Jesus also has Mary's DNA). Yet as soon as a child is conceived; they now have a genome that is unique to them. This was true of Jesus too; from the specifically biological standpoint; because although, the Holy Spirit used Mary's DNA to create a XY / male genome - that genome was still distinct to Jesus.

Now if Jesus had produced children, there would be people today who had some of His DNA; yet we know from Matthew 19:12 that did not happen.

Theoretically though it could have. We'd just have two races of people on earth: descendants of the first Adam and descendants of the last Adam. Of whom all descendants of Jesus would have also been sinless themselves with to a certain regard, also incorruptible.

Now Jesus says in Matthew 19:12 (you have to look at the Greek to get the full picture of what he's saying.)

"Some are born eunuchs by nature, some are made eunuchs by men, but one has made himself a eunuch for the sake of reigning in the kingdom of heaven. But by the power of God who restrains him, let him continue in the command."

The translation is rather strange looking; now what does it mean?

Obviously if Jesus had children, He would not have been the sole Regent in the Kingdom; because there would have been other's like Him. This also expands the Trinity to the possibility of "infinity", because these descendants would invariably produce other descendants. Which when we get to the new heavens and new earth; we'd still have one race of people who potentially bear the capacity to keep reproducing. Which, again theoretically possible; but didn't happen.

The only time it could have conceivably happened was post resurrection; seeing how the atonement would have been accomplished and the issue of progeny would not have hampered that process.

Now of course your major issue this would produce, as to how God relates to the redeemed, would be social in nature. I call this the "come here let me hug and kiss you Jesus" factor; that being indwelt by the Spirit invariably produces an emotional cleaving to Jesus upon the part of the believer; (this cleaving together goes the other way too).

This all being said; Jesus having children would raise all sorts of difficulties to contend with; (outside of certain individuals getting hinky about Jesus having sex - but that's a subject for a whole other thread).

So, between Jesus, the Father and the Spirit - I'm sure they all decided it be of best wisdom not to make this messy. LOL

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<JW>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.<JW>

end

I personally believe that Jesus did have human DNA. Jesus had everything He needed to be Messiah, Savior etc. and nothing He did not need.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That's implying that sin is genetic - found in a gene or our physical, biological make up.

The idea that sin is genetic implies that we inherit sin, just as we may inherit blonde hair. So that would naturally lead on to the suggestion that because Jesus was without sin, he must also have been without human genes, DNA and everything that went into his physical make up.

You are spot on in what you are saying here.

There is an assumption that "the material world" constitutes the "fallen nature". That is not true. And the fact that this is not true is the very fact of how Jesus could be incarnated.

Now Adam (in a round about way) as being "formed from the dust of the earth" did "get his DNA" from God (maybe do I dare say in a "generic" sense)? But also in a very real way, Adam got his DNA from the environment around him.

And here's what i mean by that:

If we look at the rest of Genesis; everything else was spoken into existence. Only Adam was "personally formed". Yet, he's formed from the elements that are already present. And this I believe (would I say "technically") is where Adam's DNA came from. Obviously God arranged it in such to create a human being. It is interesting to note though that Adam was not spoken into existence, he was formed from what was already here and that I think is important. (I'm not sure I can explain why right now; but it is.)

Adam was formed in the image of God; (that image being Christ). Eve was formed from Adam, so obviously she's genetically connected to him; and Christ's body was formed from "the seed of the woman" (specifically Mary). And this is how Christ is the last Adam. This is how He's connected to the progeny of the first Adam.

Now I'd already stated that the "sin nature"; or maybe I should come up with a better word - the consequence of Adam's transgression bringing the rest of humanity (and creation itself) into the fall.

The pandora's box of the fall?
The cosmic transgression of Adam?
Universal consequence of sin?
Is this what some meant by "original sin"? - I don't know.

I totally agree that we do not inherit "sin", but we do inherit the fallen state that invariably leads to sin. This happens because the knowledge of good and evil is now part of the human experience. That knowledge is now in humanity. That knowledge corrupted humanity because humanity does not bear the attributes of God. We are not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, having no beginning and no end, or immortal.

Obviously being created entities; we are not what God is. Because of that (our being "temporal") the only thing the knowledge of good and evil could do was corrupt us. And because Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and we are made up of what God had previously spoken into existence, is why the rest of creation is affected by our disobedience. Because the proverbial pandora's box had been opened; there's no "stuffing it all back in" to return creation back to the state it existed prior to Adam's eating the fruit.

Now obviously other entities God had created partook in acquisition of that knowledge prior to Adam's eating the fruit and this is why the serpent is deceiving Eve prior to the entrance of the knowledge of good and evil into the carbon based world.

Note angels are not "redeemable". Christ did not die for angels. Once those that transgress do so; they're sealed to eternal destruction. There's no hope for them. And those who had not transgressed, there'd be no hope for them if Christ had not come; and this is because they are part of the created world, even if they are not "carbon based life".

So here is what I think people are missing. The propensity to sin is not passed through the material world - it is passed through the knowledge of good and evil!

And HERE is how Jesus did not sin. Because He had both a Divine and human natures - He was not corruptible by that knowledge!

(OK - problem solved! LOL - does anyone understand what I just said; because I'm not sure I do?)

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

Explain primary and secondary polar bodies than!

 

[The Righterzpen]

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!

Jesus was a fully functioning reproductively viable XY genomed human male. If he hadn't been, he would not have been an appropriate sacrifice.

 

[steve78]

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.

I think your wrong here. The bible says that Jesus is from the bloodline of King David.

 

[johnnywong]

Jesus definitely did not have a human father so your point is valid. Jesus was not a direct genetic descendant of Adam.

Nevertheless Jesus was born into the house of David!

Jesus was born in a human form.

Jesus was born under the law.

We can't expect the early authors of the New Testament to have understood, the deeper reality of that incarnation.

Can't agree more

 

[johnnywong]

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is of the order of Melchizedek. The description is quite clear though I can honestly say I am not sure if Jesus Christ of Nazareth has Mary's DNA. I have often wondered if God fertilized her egg or if she was implanted with an embryo. The scriptures are not clear on this, however they are clear on the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. ...

Great answer !

 

[johnnywong]

Sorry Johnny but I really don't think this reasoning is correct. It's not Biblical and seems to be over-analyzing attempting to use human logic to make a statement that, like I said, is not Biblical.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[johnnywong]

I agree with Johnny Wong.

In Christ's time, people had no concept of the human egg. They believed that the man provided the seed, and not just the pollen. They believed that the entirety of the offspring came from the father, and that the mother was the fertile soil in which it was planted. Hence, to say that Christ was born of a woman, without an earthly father, was to say that Christ was created de novo, from nothing, without physical ancestry.

I saw someone claim that Christians for the last 2000 years have believed that Mary provided her genes. I guess the Orthodox have gotten so used to making that argument that they miss the absurdity of that statement. Christians did not know until recently that any woman contributed anything of the sort. People knew that the woman contributed something, but it was thought to be in the manner that soil contributes to the character of the crop. This goes to show how easily the history of tradition can be rewritten to suit any argument.

Someone here said that this was heresy. No, the more recent belief, the one that could not have existed before modern times, is the only position of the two that could be heresy.

Someone here thought that sin was imputed through the DNA, but that claim never made. Christ could not have been perfect if any DNA was inherited. This doesn't necessarily refer to sin. It is absolutely true of perfection. Any change made to her genetics after the Fall of Man was the result of a corruption. Anything she had to offer, genetically, was necessarily corrupt. Unless she was a clone of Eve on her first day in the garden, she had only imperfect DNA to give.

Someone here also claimed that God could have used Mary's DNA and perfected it in the process. What silliness! If it had been perfected, then it would not have been the same genetic information, and it would not have been Mary's. If you overwrite a hymn on a disk with heavy metal, then it is no longer a hymn. The essence of the DNA is its information. Change that information, and you destroy the significance of the contribution. It means nothing.

Some say that Mary was perfect. Some say that she became perfect. Both are scripturally unfounded. It is the necessary doctrine for elevating a mortal to godhood, and nothing more.

Some say that it is necessary for God to be both God and man that he should halfway be composed of bad DNA. If that were the case, then Adam could not have been made perfect, originally, and God made a flawed work. Adam was a man. Adam's name meant "Man." Christ was the second Adam.

Some would suggest that it was necessary, so that Christ could relate to us. That would suggest that his genetic heritage made him one of us. The fact that he lived and breathed, communicated and walked among us as an actual human being meant nothing, if he did not have the same flavor of DNA as us? If that were the case, then people of other races are excluded from that communion, having as much difference from Christ's DNA as the Jews would have had with a Christ with perfect DNA. What foolishness!

Some have said that it was necessary in order for Christ to be of the lineage of David, but Christ was already an heir of David by virtue of his birthright. The fact that he had no earthly father made him already not a physical descendant, by way of the thinking of the early Christians, the Dark Age Christians, the Medieval Christians, the Renaissance Christians, the Industrial Age Christians, etc., and everyone but You, the enlightened Information Age Christians. It's a wonder the whole of Christianity did not slip into apostasy.

Sometimes, you people, slow down and think about things.

Thanks for your detailed explanation.

This is the exact reason I raised up this thread from the start.

As Christians we should be open to discussion about the truth.

Burying our heads under the sand can't stop the non-believers to question our faith in the light of recent science discoveries.

 

[johnnywong]

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.

Great.
We should be open-minded ,we believe in Jesus (relationship with him not religion )

 

[johnnywong]

Jesus was a fully functioning reproductively viable XY genomed human male. If he hadn't been, he would not have been an appropriate sacrifice.

Agree.