The Necessity of Special Creation

[standingfirminChrist]

In a previous thread, annsni asked me this question:

can you give the name of one reputable Christian theologian/teacher/preacher who believes as you do?

In his article "Creation and the Virgin Birth", Dr Henry Morris, Ph. D. writes:

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself.
That is, God directly formed a body for the second Adam just as He had for the first Adam (Genesis 2:7). This was nothing less than a miracle of creation, capable of accomplishment only by the Creator Himself. "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).
Surely God would devote no more attention to the design and construction of the body of "the first man, of the earth, earthy" than He would to that of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" (I Corinthians 15:47)!



There is much more in the article to substantiate Dr Morris' writings on the subject of the virgin birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I certainly hope you considered Dr Henry Morris reputable enough.

 

[skypair]

Don't know about the author's credentials, sf, but the Bible says that Christ would come as "the seed of the woman" in Genesis.

As to sin nature, in His veins never flowed the blood of man but of God (there is persistent thought that the "curse" is in the blood and that it was shedding His perfect blood that atoned for sin). A mother never shares her blood with the fetus and Christ's blood was born of perfect God -- His DNA, I guess.

skypair

 

[Eliyahu]

In a previous thread, annsni asked me this question:



In his article "Creation and the Virgin Birth", Dr Henry Morris, Ph. D. writes:

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself.
That is, God directly formed a body for the second Adam just as He had for the first Adam (Genesis 2:7). This was nothing less than a miracle of creation, capable of accomplishment only by the Creator Himself. "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).
Surely God would devote no more attention to the design and construction of the body of "the first man, of the earth, earthy" than He would to that of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" (I Corinthians 15:47)!



There is much more in the article to substantiate Dr Morris' writings on the subject of the virgin birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I certainly hope you considered Dr Henry Morris reputable enough.

Excellent Post.
I didn't think I was the first one who claimed the Surrogate Motherhood of Mary though I didn't know who else claimed such.
In my church, some preachers said on the pulpit, Jesus had only Father, but no mother, and nobody argued against it.

If Mary were the Biological Mother, then Roman Catholic is right in exalting her in a certain sense, though it may be still absurd if they call her Mother of God. The contribution by the Biological Motherhood must be important, and the Blood shed at the Cross must have been inherited from Mary, having the half DNA from Mary, then she must be exalted in a certain sense.
And moreover, if the egg of Mary had been used, at a certain time before the conception, Mary must have been sinless, so that her egg should be sinless. Otherwise, it is impossible that Jesus shed the precious, sinless Blood at the Cross. If the Blood of Jesus had been the same as others having the sin nature, why didn't the Blood of many martyrs couldn't appease the wrath of God for the whole human beings?

Henry Morris was an important figure in Creation Science and his comment may be significant. However, we do not rely on the human consents, but we do have sufficent supporters from the Bible.

1. Word of God became Flesh ( Jn 1:14)
Not the Flesh ( ovum of Mary) became the Flesh of Jesus.

2. Son of God had No Mother. ( Heb 7:1-5)
If Jesus had the Biological Mother, this verse couldn't stand. The Writer couldn't say so.

3. Jesus was already born ( not conceived ) by the Holy Spirit before He came out of Mary ( Mt 1:20-25)

- This indicates that Jesus was born as a perfect human embryo by Holy Spirit

4. It was not the first time that God appeared with the flesh to the world.
Genesis 18:1- clearly tells us, God had his feet washed, took the rest, ate the butter and veal, spoke to Abraham.
The only difference is that The Pre-Incarnate Jesus didn't come out of a woman, thru the seed of Abraham, of David, of a woman.
When He came to Mary, He came in the minimized flesh form, in the human embryo form.

5. Jesus Himself mentioned that Abraham saw His Days ( JN 8:56-8) : This is more powerful than saying Abe saw me, seeing the Days of Jesus meant the comprehensive life with Jesus. This may be indicating Genesis 18 as well. The person Jesus who knew Abraham didn't disappear when He was born in Mary. If Word was fertilized with egg of Mary, it would have formed a new person with new brain, where was the previous Jesus gone?

6. The only stronghold for Biological Motherhood may be " Seed of a woman" " Seed of Abraham, of David" However, there is no problem with it even though Mary was a Surrogate mother.

In our church nobody argued against Surrogate Motherhood. How come the Baptist cannot believe " Word became flesh" but insist Flesh became Flesh?

 

[donnA]

Don't know about the author's credentials, sf, but the Bible says that Christ would come as "the seed of the woman" in Genesis.

As to sin nature, in His veins never flowed the blood of man but of God (there is persistent thought that the "curse" is in the blood and that it was shedding His perfect blood that atoned for sin). A mother never shares her blood with the fetus and Christ's blood was born of perfect God -- His DNA, I guess.

skypair

How do you account for the fact that the woman has no seed?

 

[annsni]

Thank you SFIC. I don't know Dr. Morris or his credentials but alteast that's someone other than some Buddhist blogger!

Eliyahu - You keep getting hung up on this "Word became flesh" cannot happen if Mary's egg was involved but there is no issue. My children did not exist before their egg and their sperm united and created a new person. While the egg was there from the time that I was being created, it was not always there - and it was no a child until it was fertilized. When Mary was walking around as a little girl, that one egg that would become the Savior of the world was not the Word. It was not the Word when she became betrothed to Joseph but it became the Word when the Holy Spirit performed a miracle in her. So there is no inconsistency with saying that the Word became flesh using Mary's egg and it is completely consistent with Scripture saying that He would be born of the seed of a woman.

 

[Eliyahu]

Don't know about the author's credentials, sf, but the Bible says that Christ would come as "the seed of the woman" in Genesis.

As to sin nature, in His veins never flowed the blood of man but of God (there is persistent thought that the "curse" is in the blood and that it was shedding His perfect blood that atoned for sin). A mother never shares her blood with the fetus and Christ's blood was born of perfect God -- His DNA, I guess.

skypair

Please note this:

1. Seed of Woman meant the descendant of woman or child of woman, the Word for Seed is Zerah and it was mostly used for the child or descendant.

2. Once the Biological relationship is established, the child carries all the DNA in his( her) blood, and therefore we cannot deny the linkage if Jesus was the Biological child of Mary.

 

[donnA]

A woman contributes no seed, the man does.
Jesus would have inherited the sin nature if Mary contributed. His shed blood could not pay the penalty of our sin if it had the sin nature (inherited from Mary's dna).
Jesus is compared to Adam, Adam was created without a mother's dna, sin free and perfect. If Mary contributed to Jesus He could not be compared to Adam.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Thank you SFIC. I don't know Dr. Morris or his credentials but alteast that's someone other than some Buddhist blogger!

Eliyahu - You keep getting hung up on this "Word became flesh" cannot happen if Mary's egg was involved but there is no issue. My children did not exist before their egg and their sperm united and created a new person. While the egg was there from the time that I was being created, it was not always there - and it was no a child until it was fertilized. When Mary was walking around as a little girl, that one egg that would become the Savior of the world was not the Word. It was not the Word when she became betrothed to Joseph but it became the Word when the Holy Spirit performed a miracle in her. So there is no inconsistency with saying that the Word became flesh using Mary's egg and it is completely consistent with Scripture saying that He would be born of the seed of a woman.

Ann, the thoughts of a layman article that I posted in the other thread was not from that Buddhist site. It was from a Christian. Buddhists do not promote Christ and the death on the cross. This person did.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Don't know about the author's credentials, sf, but the Bible says that Christ would come as "the seed of the woman" in Genesis.

As to sin nature, in His veins never flowed the blood of man but of God (there is persistent thought that the "curse" is in the blood and that it was shedding His perfect blood that atoned for sin). A mother never shares her blood with the fetus and Christ's blood was born of perfect God -- His DNA, I guess.

skypair

skypair,

Look up the Hebrew for 'her seed' in Genesis 3:15. It means posterity or child, not egg.

 

[Eliyahu]

Thank you SFIC. I don't know Dr. Morris or his credentials but alteast that's someone other than some Buddhist blogger!

Eliyahu - You keep getting hung up on this "Word became flesh" cannot happen if Mary's egg was involved but there is no issue. My children did not exist before their egg and their sperm united and created a new person. While the egg was there from the time that I was being created, it was not always there - and it was no a child until it was fertilized. When Mary was walking around as a little girl, that one egg that would become the Savior of the world was not the Word. It was not the Word when she became betrothed to Joseph but it became the Word when the Holy Spirit performed a miracle in her. So there is no inconsistency with saying that the Word became flesh using Mary's egg and it is completely consistent with Scripture saying that He would be born of the seed of a woman.

You continue to reveal the ignorances.
1. You don't know Henry Morris ? He is the most important figure in Creation Science who passed away 2 years ago ( Feb 26, 2006).

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/morris-h.html

If you had not read any of his books, you must be very much ignorant about the Creation Science.

2. Where is the Bible verse saying He would be born of the seed of a woman?

You must be very careful in quoting such!
Simply the Bible says, the Zera of the woman will defeat thy seed.

Where is such verse?
Your theology is just Rough and Tough!
Zera simply meant the descendant!

He would be the child of the woman !

3. I mentioned the Bible verses in more than 5 places, where is your supporter in the Bible?
We can analyze the Bible verses one by one.

 

[Eliyahu]

Another site for Henry Morris

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=189

 

[annsni]

How do you account for the fact that the woman has no seed?

Well, God said it so I believe it! Genesis 3:15

 

[annsni]

Ann, the thoughts of a layman article that I posted in the other thread was not from that Buddhist site. It was from a Christian. Buddhists do not promote Christ and the death on the cross. This person did.

Maybe he's a universalist Buddhist. I don't know - but did you look at the site? He's not a Christian. I promise.

 

[annsni]

skypair,

Look up the Hebrew for 'her seed' in Genesis 3:15. It means posterity or child, not egg.

When you read the word in all of the verses that it is in, "seed" means direct blood descendent. Can you show me Scripture where it would mean adopted child??

You continue to reveal the ignorances.
1. You don't know Henry Morris ? He is the most important figure in Creation Science who passed away 2 years ago ( Feb 26, 2006).

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/morris-h.html

If you had not read any of his books, you must be very much ignorant about the Creation Science.

Well, I've not followed every detail of Creation Science - it's not my area of expertise and I'm sorry about that since it seems to shock you so much. I HAVE been somewhat busy educating 4 children and being a wife and pastor's wife. I'll put his books on my reading list....

2. Where is the Bible verse saying He would be born of the seed of a woman?

Well, Genesis 3:15 speaks of Eve's seed. That's the seed of a woman.

You must be very careful in quoting such!
Simply the Bible says, the Zera of the woman will defeat thy seed.

Right....

Where is such verse?
Your theology is just Rough and Tough!
Zera simply meant the descendant!

He would be the child of the woman !

Rough and tough? Might want to speak to Paul and the church father's about that one. They also have agreed with me as has the majority of Christians through history. Yes, He would be the child the woman. The physical child. He was not born aside from the woman but FROM the woman. Without that, Jesus was not human as we are. He was not of the lineage of David and therefore is NOT the Messiah. I've said this before.

3. I mentioned the Bible verses in more than 5 places, where is your supporter in the Bible?
We can analyze the Bible verses one by one.

What Bible verses? Where it says that Jesus was not born of Mary? Because I see that pretty clearly. DHK has listed them all.

Here's from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem:

The virgin birth made possible the uniting of full diety and full humanity in one person. This was the means God used to send His Son (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4) into the world as a man. If we think for a moment of other possible ways in which Christ might have come to the earth, none of them would so clearly unite humanity and diety in one person. It probably would have been possible for God to create Jesus as a complete human being in heaven and send him to descend from heaven to earth without the benefits of any human parent. But then it would have been very hard for us to see how Jesus could be fully human as we are, nor would he be a part of the human race that physically descended from Adam. On the other hand, it would have been possible for God to have Jesus come into the world with two human parents, both a father and mother, and with his full divine nature miraculously united to his human nature at some point early in his life. But then it would have been hard for us to understand how Jesus was fully God, since his origin was like ours in every way. When we think of these two other possibilities, it helps us to understand how God, in his wisdom, ordained a combination of human and divine influence in the birth of Christ, so that his full humanity would be evident to us from the fact of his ordinary human birth from a human mother, and his full deity would be evident from the fact of his conception in Mary's womb by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit.


From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Genesis 3:15:

Notice is here given them of three things concerning Christ:—(1.) His incarnation, that he should be the seed of the woman, the seed of that woman; therefore his genealogy (Lu. 3) goes so high as to show him to be the son of Adam, but God does the woman the honour to call him rather her seed, because she it was whom the devil had beguiled, and on whom Adam had laid the blame; herein God magnifies his grace, in that, though the woman was first in the transgression, yet she shall be saved by child-bearing (as some read it), that is, by the promised seed who shall descend from her, 1 Tim. 2:15. He was likewise to be the seed of a woman only, of a virgin, that he might not be tainted with the corruption of our nature; he was sent forth, made of a woman (Gal. 4:4), that this promise might be fulfilled. It is a great encouragement to sinners that their Saviour is the seed of the woman, bone of our bone, Heb. 2:11, 14. Man is therefore sinful and unclean, because he is born of a woman (Job 25:4), and therefore his days are full of trouble, Job 14:1. But the seed of the woman was made sin and a curse for us, so saving us from both.

 

[Joe]

Don't know about the author's credentials, sf, but the Bible says that Christ would come as "the seed of the woman" in Genesis.

As to sin nature, in His veins never flowed the blood of man but of God (there is persistent thought that the "curse" is in the blood and that it was shedding His perfect blood that atoned for sin). A mother never shares her blood with the fetus and Christ's blood was born of perfect God -- His DNA, I guess.

skypair

Actually, the umbilical cord which ties the mother to the babies belly button carries blood. When it is snipped upon birth, it is also clamped to prevent the blood from pouring out. Some of that blood now is stored for later medicinal uses.
It seems logical that the mother(Mary) and baby (Christ) shared blood. So my prior theory of Mary's surrogate motherhood is likely inaccurate imo. Christ was exposed to her sin nature.

Christ was probably the biological son of Mary, coinciding with traditonal Christian teachings, not that it's really that important. Just my two cents

 

[Eliyahu]

When you read the word in all of the verses that it is in, "seed" means direct blood descendent. Can you show me Scripture where it would mean adopted child??



Well, I've not followed every detail of Creation Science - it's not my area of expertise and I'm sorry about that since it seems to shock you so much. I HAVE been somewhat busy educating 4 children and being a wife and pastor's wife. I'll put his books on my reading list....




Well, Genesis 3:15 speaks of Eve's seed. That's the seed of a woman.



Right....



Rough and tough? Might want to speak to Paul and the church father's about that one. They also have agreed with me as has the majority of Christians through history. Yes, He would be the child the woman. The physical child. He was not born aside from the woman but FROM the woman. Without that, Jesus was not human as we are. He was not of the lineage of David and therefore is NOT the Messiah. I've said this before.



What Bible verses? Where it says that Jesus was not born of Mary? Because I see that pretty clearly. DHK has listed them all.

Here's from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem:

The virgin birth made possible the uniting of full diety and full humanity in one person. This was the means God used to send His Son (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4) into the world as a man. If we think for a moment of other possible ways in which Christ might have come to the earth, none of them would so clearly unite humanity and diety in one person. It probably would have been possible for God to create Jesus as a complete human being in heaven and send him to descend from heaven to earth without the benefits of any human parent. But then it would have been very hard for us to see how Jesus could be fully human as we are, nor would he be a part of the human race that physically descended from Adam. On the other hand, it would have been possible for God to have Jesus come into the world with two human parents, both a father and mother, and with his full divine nature miraculously united to his human nature at some point early in his life. But then it would have been hard for us to understand how Jesus was fully God, since his origin was like ours in every way. When we think of these two other possibilities, it helps us to understand how God, in his wisdom, ordained a combination of human and divine influence in the birth of Christ, so that his full humanity would be evident to us from the fact of his ordinary human birth from a human mother, and his full deity would be evident from the fact of his conception in Mary's womb by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit.


From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Genesis 3:15:

Notice is here given them of three things concerning Christ:—(1.) His incarnation, that he should be the seed of the woman, the seed of that woman; therefore his genealogy (Lu. 3) goes so high as to show him to be the son of Adam, but God does the woman the honour to call him rather her seed, because she it was whom the devil had beguiled, and on whom Adam had laid the blame; herein God magnifies his grace, in that, though the woman was first in the transgression, yet she shall be saved by child-bearing (as some read it), that is, by the promised seed who shall descend from her, 1 Tim. 2:15. He was likewise to be the seed of a woman only, of a virgin, that he might not be tainted with the corruption of our nature; he was sent forth, made of a woman (Gal. 4:4), that this promise might be fulfilled. It is a great encouragement to sinners that their Saviour is the seed of the woman, bone of our bone, Heb. 2:11, 14. Man is therefore sinful and unclean, because he is born of a woman (Job 25:4), and therefore his days are full of trouble, Job 14:1. But the seed of the woman was made sin and a curse for us, so saving us from both.

Wayne Grudem doesn't seem to go into the depth of this matter with Biological motherhood while Matthew Henry mentioned the Biological Motherhood. However, Matthew Henry misunderstood about Jesus Christ quite a lot. Jesus Christ was not a sinner. What Henry says is that Jesus became a sinner by taking the seed of Mary, which is a Heresy!

I mentioned the most powerful bible verses in denying Biological Motherhood of Mary already and add more explanation here:

1. Word of God became Flesh ( Jn 1:14)
Not the Flesh ( ovum of Mary) became the Flesh of Jesus.
If you say that the egg of Mary became the flesh, then it clearly contradicts this Bible verse.
What John 1:14 talks about Word is the Creator Jesus Christ, the Perfect God-Man, not a piece of word. Word means Invisible Truth and He became simply Flesh.


2. Son of God had No Mother. ( Heb 7:1-5)
If Jesus had the Biological Mother, this verse couldn't stand. The Writer couldn't say so.
I explained the interpretation of Heb 7. If Mary was the Biological Mother of Son of God, the Hebrews Writer couldn't say " Without Mother" No one denies Biological Mother.

3. Jesus was already born ( not conceived ) by the Holy Spirit before He came out of Mary ( Mt 1:20-25)

- This indicates that Jesus was born as a perfect human embryo by Holy Spirit

The word used here is Genethen conjugated from Genao which is used for Begat, Begotten. Jesus was already born ( as a perfect human being) into Mary when she started the pregnancy, before He was born out of Mary.

4. It was not the first time that God appeared with the flesh to the world.
Genesis 18:1- clearly tells us, God had his feet washed, took the rest, ate the butter and veal, spoke to Abraham.
The only difference is that The Pre-Incarnate Jesus didn't come out of a woman, thru the seed of Abraham, of David, of a woman.
When He came to Mary, He came in the minimized flesh form, in the human embryo form. Jehovah ate the Bread and Butter, and had nothing short of human being. God can do everything except few things which contradicts His own attributes.

5. Jesus Himself mentioned that Abraham saw His Days ( JN 8:56-8) : This is more powerful than saying Abe saw me, seeing the Days of Jesus meant the comprehensive life with Jesus. This may be indicating Genesis 18 as well. The person Jesus who knew Abraham didn't disappear when He was born in Mary. If Word was fertilized with egg of Mary, it would have formed a new person with new brain, where was the previous Jesus gone?


6. If anyone claims that Ovum of Mary were fertilized with Word of God,
it may cause the argument that Holy Spirit comitted the adultery with another woman which is against the Holiness and Justice of God.


7. If anyone claims that the Ovum of Mary were fertilized with Word of God, then it means that there was a moment while Word itself was not perfect until it is fertilized with the egg to become a perfect human Embryo, which is contradictory to the perfect nature of Jesus.


8. The only stronghold for Biological Motherhood may be " Seed of a woman" " Seed of Abraham, of David" However, there is no problem with it even though Mary was a Surrogate mother.

Jesus was born as the Seed of a Woman because He was born thru the surrogate mother as He was the descendant of the woman.
There is no contradiction between the Surrogate Motherhood and the Seed of the woman.
REPEATEDLY, Zera doesn't mean only the seed or ovum of woman, but the Child or Dsecendant of a person.

God can create many Adams ! but created 2 Adams, The First Adam and the Second Adam, and the Second Adam was different and rescued the First Adam's Race.

I wrote this many times, which you may have missed.

Read the meaning of Zera here:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H02233&Version=kjv

 

[annsni]

Actually, the umbilical cord which ties the mother to the babies belly button carries blood. When it is snipped upon birth, it is also clamped to prevent the blood from pouring out. Some of that blood now is stored for later medicinal uses.
It seems logical that the mother(Mary) and baby (Christ) shared blood. So my prior theory of Mary's surrogate motherhood is likely inaccurate imo. Christ was exposed to her sin nature.

Christ was probably the biological son of Mary, coinciding with traditonal Christian teachings, not that it's really that important. Just my two cents

Actually, I don't think the blood itself passes back and forth because both usually have different blood types and the crossing over of the blood would cause major issues but some of the blood products and obviously nutrition and waste pass back and forth. There IS a mingling in the placenta of the blood but if I'm recalling my bio and anatomy and physiology, the blood doesn't pass back and forth.

 

[Joe]

Interesting.....

 

[Agnus_Dei]

A woman contributes no seed, the man does.
Jesus would have inherited the sin nature if Mary contributed. His shed blood could not pay the penalty of our sin if it had the sin nature (inherited from Mary's dna).
Jesus is compared to Adam, Adam was created without a mother's dna, sin free and perfect. If Mary contributed to Jesus He could not be compared to Adam.

You’re too hung up on “sin”…we including Christ inherited the consequences of Adam’s disobedience. That being death. Adam wasn’t perfect, he was “good”; sin free in his creation, but with a freewill attribute. Adam chose to disobey, thus breaking his relationship with God and death entered the world.

We suffer from the consequence of Adam’s sin, but I’m no more responsible for Adam’s sin than I am yours. So when I was born, I was not guilty of anything…yet anyway.

Mary had no “sin” to “pass on”, no guilt whatsoever. Jesus’ natures are both human and divine. His human nature is no different than yours or mine, he was tempted, hungered, thirst, could bleed, feel pain, sorrow…ect (by taking on our humanity, Christ bridges the chasm between the Creator and the created) and Christ is fully divine.

Christ being fully human remained sinless, b/c His humanity, the same as ours, submitted to His Divinity.

When a baby is born, they inherit consequences, death and a fallen humanity and eventually the baby, like Adam will rebel and sin.

Protestantism and Catholicism are to a degree, no different in their theology of original sin…Augustine developed the theology and the Reformers developed it further.

In XC
-

 

[Eliyahu]

You guys need to study both Bible and the Life Science, OB&Gyn.

My conclusion was made after the lengthy discussion with the MD in OB+Gyn for long time.

Blood is produced in the backbone and if the DNA of Mary was inherited to Jesus, then Jesus must have the DNA in His backbone and the same Blood nature should have passed unto Him.

The Mary's DNA must have been affected since the Fall of Adam, and the life time has been shortened from Eternity to 900 years to 100 years.
DNA has become damaged or deformed by parts.

Before you make the conclusion, you must be able to refute the Bible interpretation on Heb 7, John 1, Heb 1:5, Mt 1:20, Genesis 18:1-.