Did Jesus have Mary’s DNA?

[37818]

I believe it to be the same connotation as this.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:57
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:57 < That was the tree of life in the garden. Sin cut man off from the tree of life, until the Son of Man died and was raised out of the dead.


Who, were they eating of?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was of the knowledge of an infinite good God. Where evil could not negate God's goodness. Were as man was created good was only finite where any knowledge of evil corrupts and the knowledge of good causes self condemnation for the evil. A sinful nature is caused.

Now Christ being the true manna from Heaven the eating His flesh and drinking His blood being metaphor for believing and coming to Him. Re: John 6:35

 

[JonC]

I suspect so (that Jesus had Mary's DNA). Jesus was born human (human DNA). Sin is not a genetic disorder (passed via DNA) but a matter of the heart.

 

[AustinC]

For the record, in relation to ancient heresies (Roman Catholic source) :

"Valentinianism taught that the Holy Spirit deposited the Christ Child in her womb and that Mary was a surrogate mother, but not truly Christ’s genetic mother. Valentinian the Gnostic (d. 160) taught that the Son of God passed through Mary like water through a straw."

This is not my position.
Jesus body was grown, as fully human, from conception onward. This fulfilled all the prophetic words regarding the Promised One.
Do people imagine that the Holy Spirit implanted a holy sperm into Mary's egg? God is not a sexual being, Jesus was incarnated as fully human. The 2nd Adam.

 

[AustinC]

I suspect so (that Jesus had Mary's DNA). Jesus was born human (human DNA). Sin is not a genetic disorder (passed via DNA) but a matter of the heart.

It could be. In some way, the curse upon man was not given to Jesus. He was not born corrupt in spirit, but had the nature of the 1st Adam before sin corrupted mankind.

 

[JonC]

It could be. In some way, the curse upon man was not given to Jesus. He was not born corrupt in spirit, but had the nature of the 1st Adam before sin corrupted mankind.

I disagree to an extent (as Jesus was under the curse).

 

[Baptist Believer]

Do people imagine that the Holy Spirit implanted a holy sperm into Mary's egg?

The exactly process is not specified in scripture (why should it be?), but I have no issue with the concept that holy sperm fertilized Mary's ovum. There's nothing untoward about it, although it might make a Sunday School teacher squeamish.

God is not a sexual being...

God is not a human being either, yet, here were are. Jesus became fully human.

Jesus was incarnated as fully human. The 2nd Adam.

Yes, the physical son of Mary.

I'll go back and respond to your earlier objections as soon as possible.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No one is denying the full humanity of Jesus. How is Gnosticism even a part of this conversation?

Because Gnosticism believes that the material world is evil, including the human body. Gnosticism is part of the philosophical background that gets worked up over Jesus being a physical descendant of Mary.

Why exactly can Jesus not be our High Priest if God created His humanity/DNA apart from Mary? Why can He not redeem us, resurrect us, make propitiation for us without Mary’s DNA, even though He is fully human?

Because Humanity 1.0 needs to be saved, not Humanity 2.0. The high priests in a Aaronic priesthood were selected from among the people by God. The High Priest in the Melchizedek priesthood was selected from among the people by God. God selected Jesus, the son of Mary and the Son of God, to bridge the divide between God and humanity. In tribal societies, the way warring tribes made peace was often through marriage. The son of one tribe and the daughter of another tribe would marry and raise children that were legitimately of both tribes, bringing them together. Frankly, this is not limited to tribal societies either. Historically, European royal families were often related in the hopes of preserving "royal" lineages and promoting peace between countries. In the same way, Jesus was LEGITIMATELY both a child of the fallen human line and the Son of the Holy God, and could therefore represent both and make peace between God and fallen humankind.

Does that make sense?

 

[canadyjd]

Because Gnosticism believes that the material world is evil, including the human body. Gnosticism is part of the philosophical background that gets worked up over Jesus being a physical descendant of Mary.


Because Humanity 1.0 needs to be saved, not Humanity 2.0. The high priests in a Aaronic priesthood were selected from among the people by God. The High Priest in the Melchizedek priesthood was selected from among the people by God. God selected Jesus, the son of Mary and the Son of God, to bridge the divide between God and humanity. In tribal societies, the way warring tribes made peace was often through marriage. The son of one tribe and the daughter of another tribe would marry and raise children that were legitimately of both tribes, bringing them together. Frankly, this is not limited to tribal societies either. Historically, European royal families were often related in the hopes of preserving "royal" lineages and promoting peace between countries. In the same way, Jesus was LEGITIMATELY both a child of the fallen human line and the Son of the Holy God, and could therefore represent both and make peace between God and fallen humankind.

Does that make sense?

There is no humanity 2.0 or 1.0. There is only humanity.

Jesus does not need Mary’s DNA to be fully human and represent humanity and bring peace.

She bore Him, she gave birth to Him. She was His mother.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

I disagree to an extent (as Jesus was under the curse).

He was born corrupt?

 

[JonC]

He was born corrupt?

No. He became a curse for us, but without sin. I am saying sin is not genetic (it is not a physical problem but a spiritual problem).

 

[AustinC]

Because Gnosticism believes that the material world is evil, including the human body. Gnosticism is part of the philosophical background that gets worked up over Jesus being a physical descendant of Mary.


Because Humanity 1.0 needs to be saved, not Humanity 2.0. The high priests in a Aaronic priesthood were selected from among the people by God. The High Priest in the Melchizedek priesthood was selected from among the people by God. God selected Jesus, the son of Mary and the Son of God, to bridge the divide between God and humanity. In tribal societies, the way warring tribes made peace was often through marriage. The son of one tribe and the daughter of another tribe would marry and raise children that were legitimately of both tribes, bringing them together. Frankly, this is not limited to tribal societies either. Historically, European royal families were often related in the hopes of preserving "royal" lineages and promoting peace between countries. In the same way, Jesus was LEGITIMATELY both a child of the fallen human line and the Son of the Holy God, and could therefore represent both and make peace between God and fallen humankind.

Does that make sense?

Jesus is not a priest in the line of Aaron.

Hebrews 7:1-3,11-17 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

Jesus has no need to have DNA from Mary or Joseph in order to be fully human and come from the line of Judah. He was birthed from Mary and from Joseph he gets his lineage (though no sperm from Joseph). Hebrews does not demand Mary's DNA in order for Jesus to be fully human and fully of the line of Judah.

 

[AustinC]

No. He became a curse for us, but without sin. I am saying sin is not genetic (it is not a physical problem but a spiritual problem).

He became a curse at the cross, taking the Father's wrath, meant for us, and thus saving us from the Father's wrath. The curse was removed for all who believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. He became a curse for us, but without sin. I am saying sin is not genetic (it is not a physical problem but a spiritual problem).

We are born as those with sin natures, Jesus born with a sinless nature, same as Adam before he fell!

 

[Yeshua1]

He became a curse at the cross, taking the Father's wrath, meant for us, and thus saving us from the Father's wrath. The curse was removed for all who believe.

He was and is only human who was without a sin nature and sin!

 

[percho]

The exactly process is not specified in scripture (why should it be?), but I have no issue with the concept that holy sperm fertilized Mary's ovum. There's nothing untoward about it, although it might make a Sunday School teacher squeamish.


God is not a human being either, yet, here were are. Jesus became fully human.


Yes, the physical son of Mary.

I'll go back and respond to your earlier objections as soon as possible.

I would go so far as to say Jesus is still human, still man.

εἷς γὰρ θεός εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς 1 Tim 2:5 for one God, one also mediator of God and of men, man Christ Jesus,

 

[MB]

Because Gnosticism believes that the material world is evil, including the human body. Gnosticism is part of the philosophical background that gets worked up over Jesus being a physical descendant of Mary.


Because Humanity 1.0 needs to be saved, not Humanity 2.0. The high priests in a Aaronic priesthood were selected from among the people by God. The High Priest in the Melchizedek priesthood was selected from among the people by God. God selected Jesus, the son of Mary and the Son of God, to bridge the divide between God and humanity. In tribal societies, the way warring tribes made peace was often through marriage. The son of one tribe and the daughter of another tribe would marry and raise children that were legitimately of both tribes, bringing them together. Frankly, this is not limited to tribal societies either. Historically, European royal families were often related in the hopes of preserving "royal" lineages and promoting peace between countries. In the same way, Jesus was LEGITIMATELY both a child of the fallen human line and the Son of the Holy God, and could therefore represent both and make peace between God and fallen humankind.

Does that make sense?

Well said.
MB

 

[percho]

You have the emphasis in the wrong place. The PATERNITY of Jesus is the most important part.

Since, in human beings, biological men cannot bear children, the "seed" and womb of a biological woman was the way God could enter into humanity, being both fully God and fully human.

The purpose of Mary being a virgin was to establish the Divine paternity of Jesus, not as a barrier against sin.

And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife, and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. Matt 1:24,25

Was it physically possible for Joseph to have known her before she brought forth?

Had he done so would, that baby boy, have been brought forth in iniquity?

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive; Gal 4:4,5

What law put man under the need for redemption? Was it; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

What law did Jesus come under that brought the means of redemption? Was it; 'Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.' matt 1:23

Just a thought.

 

[canadyjd]

And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife, and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. Matt 1:24,25

Was it physically possible for Joseph to have known her before she brought forth?

Had he done so would, that baby boy, have been brought forth in iniquity?

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive; Gal 4:4,5

What law put man under the need for redemption? Was it; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

What law did Jesus come under that brought the means of redemption? Was it; 'Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.' matt 1:23

Just a thought.

The “Law” in these passages is referring to the OT Law of Moses.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

He became a curse at the cross, taking the Father's wrath, meant for us, and thus saving us from the Father's wrath. The curse was removed for all who believe.

I disagree. He submitted Himself to become under the curse. He knew pain, experienced sorrow, experienced temptation....all before the Cross.

He willingly fell under the curse on the day He was born. Yet He is eternally without sin.

 

[AustinC]

I disagree. He submitted Himself to become under the curse. He knew pain, experienced sorrow, experienced temptation....all before the Cross.

He willingly fell under the curse on the day He was born. Yet He is eternally without sin.

He knew all these things just as all nature is subject under the curse.