The DNA of Jesus?

[Armchair Apologist]

@Cathode made the following post about a week ago and I was unable to respond at the time getting ready to go out of town but the statement is intriguing and worthy of discussion. I quoted the entire post for context but the bolded part is where I wanted to comment:

Once you understand Mary’s role in the totality and depth of scripture, you understand why She is body and soul in Heaven.

Being the Ark of the New Covenant, Queen Mother of the Davidic line etc.

But what I contemplate most of all is the fact that 100% of Jesus flesh and blood is Mary’s flesh and blood and 100% of Mary’s flesh and blood is Jesus flesh and blood.

It is only fitting that Mary be taken up bodily into glory.

First of all, I believe we are all in agreement regarding the hypostatic union: that Jesus is both "Truly Man" and "Truly God" right?

In order for Jesus to be "Truly Man," he must have 42 Chromosomes (26 pair) right? Reproduction requires 26 from the female (XX) and 26 from the male (XY).

Therefore, 26 of Jesus's Chromosomes obviously came from Mary and a modern DNA test would bear this out. The other 26 came from God and was supernaturally unified with Mary's 26 thus forming a complete human zygote of which became Christ incarnate.

We can therefore say with 100% confidence that Mary was Jesus's earthly mother and that Jesus had 50% (not 100% as Cathode was asserting) of her DNA as does every other child born has 50% of its mother's DNA. If Jesus had 100% of Mary' DNA, he would be a perfect clone of Mary and I believe all would agree that such was not the case.

Where this gets interesting is if we were to speculate the composition of the DNA provided by God. Do you think it would be just some random genetic assortment or would God specifically intend a particular makeup and if so, would this DNA have any sort of a "Familial" match to anyone in his ancestral lineage? Scriptures refer to Messiah as being the "Son of David" so I wonder what the result would be if we had the DNA of both Jesus and David along with one of those modern DNA test kits, what would be the result? Perhaps it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but interesting nonetheless.

Yes, Mary was the mother of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. She was the "Theotokos" in that she bore Christ in his deity as well as his humanity but scriptures speak of nothing else beyond this! Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption ("translation" if you may) are complete fabrications that emerged as a result of fallible "tradition" that later became dogmatized.

Additionally, Mary's so-called "assumption" is based upon the scriptural precedence of the translation of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. However, one cannot make the case in any of these circumstances that any of these three were "raised incorruptible" nor can we say that they are bodily in heaven in the presence of God or whatever. Fact of the matter is, we just do not know. I believe it is fair to say that Christ is the only one who has been raised incorruptible in a glorified state of which all who are in Christ will one day be raised! Mary is awaiting this day right along with us as are Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.

 

[Foxmeister]

Another question that will be answered once we're in Heaven.

 

[Cathode]

@Cathode made the following post about a week ago and I was unable to respond at the time getting ready to go out of town but the statement is intriguing and worthy of discussion. I quoted the entire post for context but the bolded part is where I wanted to comment:

First of all, I believe we are all in agreement regarding the hypostatic union: that Jesus is both "Truly Man" and "Truly God" right?

In order for Jesus to be "Truly Man," he must have 42 Chromosomes (26 pair) right? Reproduction requires 26 from the female (XX) and 26 from the male (XY).

Therefore, 26 of Jesus's Chromosomes obviously came from Mary and a modern DNA test would bear this out. The other 26 came from God and was supernaturally unified with Mary's 26 thus forming a complete human zygote of which became Christ incarnate.

We can therefore say with 100% confidence that Mary was Jesus's earthly mother and that Jesus had 50% (not 100% as Cathode was asserting) of her DNA as does every other child born has 50% of its mother's DNA. If Jesus had 100% of Mary' DNA, he would be a perfect clone of Mary and I believe all would agree that such was not the case.

Where this gets interesting is if we were to speculate the composition of the DNA provided by God. Do you think it would be just some random genetic assortment or would God specifically intend a particular makeup and if so, would this DNA have any sort of a "Familial" match to anyone in his ancestral lineage? Scriptures refer to Messiah as being the "Son of David" so I wonder what the result would be if we had the DNA of both Jesus and David along with one of those modern DNA test kits, what would be the result? Perhaps it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but interesting nonetheless.

Yes, Mary was the mother of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. She was the "Theotokos" in that she bore Christ in his deity as well as his humanity but scriptures speak of nothing else beyond this! Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption ("translation" if you may) are complete fabrications that emerged as a result of fallible "tradition" that later became dogmatized.

Additionally, Mary's so-called "assumption" is based upon the scriptural precedence of the translation of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. However, one cannot make the case in any of these circumstances that any of these three were "raised incorruptible" nor can we say that they are bodily in heaven in the presence of God or whatever. Fact of the matter is, we just do not know. I believe it is fair to say that Christ is the only one who has been raised incorruptible in a glorified state of which all who are in Christ will one day be raised! Mary is awaiting this day right along with us as are Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.

First off, thank you mate, I am never able to talk to Protestants at this profound level regarding Mary and Jesus.
I am afraid to do this because of the gravity of this subject.

This for me is Holy ground, The Incarnation of Uncreated Eternal God.
And I ask people out of brotherly love not to enter this area with muddy boots on, past preconceptions or hasty opinions, much of what is being shared is of many lifetimes of monastic prayerful contemplation of scripture.
Can you assume this first of all before we discuss this?

I will do my best to very slowly go through the contemplations of this incredible mystery.
My greatest Joy in life is the contemplation of The Incarnation of Jesus, all things are tied to it, it is an endless wonder.

 

[Cathode]

Another question that will be answered once we're in Heaven.

No, it will take us Eternity because it leads into the Holiness and Mercy of God. There is no end to it, even with our perfected faculties.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

First off, thank you mate, I am never able to talk to Protestants at this profound level regarding Mary and Jesus.
I am afraid to do this because of the gravity of this subject.

This for me is Holy ground, The Incarnation of Uncreated Eternal God.
And I ask people out of brotherly love not to enter this area with muddy boots on, past preconceptions or hasty opinions, much of what is being shared is of many lifetimes of monastic prayerful contemplation of scripture.
Can you assume this first of all before we discuss this?

I will do my best to very slowly go through the contemplations of this incredible mystery.
My greatest Joy in life is the contemplation of The Incarnation of Jesus, all things are tied to it, it is an endless wonder.

By all means, I will give it my utmost respect!

No, it will take us Eternity because it leads into the Holiness and Mercy of God. There is no end to it, even with our perfected faculties.

LOL! This was somewhat of an afterthought on my part. The 26 (paternal) chromosomes came from somewhere and it is most certain that God extended a great bit of care regarding the genetic makeup of his Incarnate Son and such is my ultimate point. It goes without saying that there are things of which we will hardly be able to comprehend even after the passing of an eternity of eternities! We will see our Lord Jesus Christ face to face in the age to come and I would not be surprised if he bore a striking resemblance to King David as well as Mary, his mother!

 

[Cathode]

By all means, I will give it my utmost respect!


LOL! This was somewhat of an afterthought on my part. The 26 (paternal) chromosomes came from somewhere and it is most certain that God extended a great bit of care regarding the genetic makeup of his Incarnate Son and such is my ultimate point. It goes without saying that there are things of which we will hardly be able to comprehend even after the passing of an eternity of eternities! We will see our Lord Jesus Christ face to face in the age to come and I would not be surprised if he bore a striking resemblance to King David as well as Mary, his mother!

Excellent.

You have the starting premise correct off the bat.

“First of all, I believe we are all in agreement regarding the hypostatic union: that Jesus is both "Truly Man" and "Truly God" right?”

Yes.

Jesus was fully man. He wasn’t half man and half something else, something alien to man. Yet He is also truly God.

Any implications you can see from this?

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Any implications you can see from this?

Where should I start?

One thing that strikes me is that Jesus's disciples did not ask him to teach them how to heal the sick, raise the dead, turn water into wine, or even how to get coins out of a fish's mouth! The one thing they asked was "LORD teach us to pray!"

This speaks volumes regarding his prayer life and also shows us how he was walking in the frailty of his humanity and therefore completely dependent upon the Father! This was not "kenosis" but it was Christ voluntarily living and operating within the realm of his humanity with all of limitations we ourselves live with on a daily basis! I also see how Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. He fasted for 40 days and was literally starving to death towards the very end! Satan's temptations were mainly for Jesus to operate in the supernatural (in his deity) and ease the dire conditions in which he found himself! What would you do if you were starving to death and had the ability to turn stones into bread? Jesus was tempted in all manner such as we and yet without sin!''

I guess we could speak of Jesus's "peccability" or whether or not he was able to sin? I believe that Jesus in his humanity was able to sin (posse pecarre) and Paul makes it clear that Christ came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:4) but we also understand that being the eternal Son of God, he is incapable of sin so was Jesus genuinely tempted or not? Yes, we can rest in the fact that Jesus was, in fact tempted and lived a perfect life without sin and in the end, became sin for us who knew no sin!

Perhaps you want to speak of Mary being the "Theotokos?" Jesus is truly (fully and completely) man as well as being truly (fully and completely) God. He was not a "man" some of the time and "God" at other times. He is simultaneously both meaning he lived and operated within the limitations of his humanity while at the same time exercised sovereignty and dominion over his creation. The two natures are completely separate, not "mixed together." He was not some sort of "demigod" like Hercules or whatever.

Explaining Mary as the "Theotokos" is far beyond my ability. She bore the incarnate Christ (the Word made Flesh" and as a human child, he developed as any other child and as an infant, was 100% dependent upon Mary's care (although I'm sure Joseph did a late-nite "shift" or two so Mary could get some rest. What's difficult to explain is how one could look into the eyes of a helpless infant and also see the all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and eternal Son of God at the same time?

As Jesus developed in Mary's womb, he was also the infinite, eternal Son of the Living God and as such, he possessed the attributes of immensity, infinity, and simplicity meaning he was ever-present at every imaginable point in the universe even as he is right now. I could go on and on...

 

[Cathode]

Where should I start?

One thing that strikes me is that Jesus's disciples did not ask him to teach them how to heal the sick, raise the dead, turn water into wine, or even how to get coins out of a fish's mouth! The one thing they asked was "LORD teach us to pray!"

This speaks volumes regarding his prayer life and also shows us how he was walking in the frailty of his humanity and therefore completely dependent upon the Father! This was not "kenosis" but it was Christ voluntarily living and operating within the realm of his humanity with all of limitations we ourselves live with on a daily basis! I also see how Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. He fasted for 40 days and was literally starving to death towards the very end! Satan's temptations were mainly for Jesus to operate in the supernatural (in his deity) and ease the dire conditions in which he found himself! What would you do if you were starving to death and had the ability to turn stones into bread? Jesus was tempted in all manner such as we and yet without sin!''

I guess we could speak of Jesus's "peccability" or whether or not he was able to sin? I believe that Jesus in his humanity was able to sin (posse pecarre) and Paul makes it clear that Christ came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:4) but we also understand that being the eternal Son of God, he is incapable of sin so was Jesus genuinely tempted or not? Yes, we can rest in the fact that Jesus was, in fact tempted and lived a perfect life without sin and in the end, became sin for us who knew no sin!

Perhaps you want to speak of Mary being the "Theotokos?" Jesus is truly (fully and completely) man as well as being truly (fully and completely) God. He was not a "man" some of the time and "God" at other times. He is simultaneously both meaning he lived and operated within the limitations of his humanity while at the same time exercised sovereignty and dominion over his creation. The two natures are completely separate, not "mixed together." He was not some sort of "demigod" like Hercules or whatever.

Explaining Mary as the "Theotokos" is far beyond my ability. She bore the incarnate Christ (the Word made Flesh" and as a human child, he developed as any other child and as an infant, was 100% dependent upon Mary's care (although I'm sure Joseph did a late-nite "shift" or two so Mary could get some rest. What's difficult to explain is how one could look into the eyes of a helpless infant and also see the all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and eternal Son of God at the same time?

As Jesus developed in Mary's womb, he was also the infinite, eternal Son of the Living God and as such, he possessed the attributes of immensity, infinity, and simplicity meaning he was ever-present at every imaginable point in the universe even as he is right now. I could go on and on...

The first implication to Jesus being fully man, the son of man is that he received His humanity from Mary.
To redeem man He had to fully represent man by being man.

At the creation of Eve we see God puts Adam to sleep and fashions Eve from Adam. God didn’t create another being independently, but used the material of Adam to create Eve.

“ This at last is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, because out of man she was taken “ Gen 2:23

Jesus calls Mary “ Woman “, which we will talk about further.

Can you see where this is going?

We can begin to see the reversal of the creation scenario to the redemption scenario.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The first implication to Jesus being fully man, the son of man is that he received His humanity from Mary.
To redeem man He had to fully represent man by being man.

Jesus was born of Mary and yes, from this he became fully (truly) man. His incarnation without the benefit of an earthly father was necessary because the penalty of sin was passed down through the father (Adam).

In Gen 3:14-19, God lays the responsibility on the serpent ("because thou hast done this") and upon Adam ("because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife..."). Note that there is no such indictment upon Eve, only the consequences of the actions are specified (pain in childbearing and marital conflict).

Jesus was born in "likeness" of sinful flesh in a body that bore the consequences of the fall yet without sin. This is why the virgin birth was necessary and the means by which God put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

At the creation of Eve we see God puts Adam to sleep and fashions Eve from Adam. God didn’t create another being independently, but used the material of Adam to create Eve.

“ This at last is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, because out of man she was taken “ Gen 2:23

Jesus calls Mary “ Woman “, which we will talk about further.

Can you see where this is going?

We can begin to see the reversal of the creation scenario to the redemption scenario.

Adam called his wife "Eve" because she was the mother of all living. He did this after God's pronouncement of judgment and I believe there are a few things we can see here. Firstly, I believe that Adam was taking ownership of his own failure and secondly, he was acknowledging her position of honor that he perhaps had not fully acknowledged before. The man is the leader but he must give honor to the one that God has given him to lead! Many implications here that would make for a great marriage seminar and we have been going over much of this in our Wednesday Bible Study at our Church.

I know that Roman Catholics refer to Mary as being the "Second Eve" and there may be some parallels to examine but we need to be careful regarding how far we go with "typeologies" and so forth. Baptists often have this problem as well. I know that there is the "Official" Roman Catholic position along with certain factions that carry the "Cult of Mary" further than actually intended. Perhaps you can help to draw this disctinction?

I know that there has been a big push to dogmatize Mary as being the "Co-Redemptrix" and "Co-Mediatrix" but Pope Leo recently put a kibosh upon this as such seriously lacks any sort of biblical support.

 

[canadyjd]

@Cathode made the following post about a week ago and I was unable to respond at the time getting ready to go out of town but the statement is intriguing and worthy of discussion. I quoted the entire post for context but the bolded part is where I wanted to comment:

First of all, I believe we are all in agreement regarding the hypostatic union: that Jesus is both "Truly Man" and "Truly God" right?

In order for Jesus to be "Truly Man," he must have 42 Chromosomes (26 pair) right? Reproduction requires 26 from the female (XX) and 26 from the male (XY).

Therefore, 26 of Jesus's Chromosomes obviously came from Mary and a modern DNA test would bear this out. The other 26 came from God and was supernaturally unified with Mary's 26 thus forming a complete human zygote of which became Christ incarnate.

We can therefore say with 100% confidence that Mary was Jesus's earthly mother and that Jesus had 50% (not 100% as Cathode was asserting) of her DNA as does every other child born has 50% of its mother's DNA. If Jesus had 100% of Mary' DNA, he would be a perfect clone of Mary and I believe all would agree that such was not the case.

Where this gets interesting is if we were to speculate the composition of the DNA provided by God. Do you think it would be just some random genetic assortment or would God specifically intend a particular makeup and if so, would this DNA have any sort of a "Familial" match to anyone in his ancestral lineage? Scriptures refer to Messiah as being the "Son of David" so I wonder what the result would be if we had the DNA of both Jesus and David along with one of those modern DNA test kits, what would be the result? Perhaps it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but interesting nonetheless.

Yes, Mary was the mother of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. She was the "Theotokos" in that she bore Christ in his deity as well as his humanity but scriptures speak of nothing else beyond this! Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption ("translation" if you may) are complete fabrications that emerged as a result of fallible "tradition" that later became dogmatized.

Additionally, Mary's so-called "assumption" is based upon the scriptural precedence of the translation of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. However, one cannot make the case in any of these circumstances that any of these three were "raised incorruptible" nor can we say that they are bodily in heaven in the presence of God or whatever. Fact of the matter is, we just do not know. I believe it is fair to say that Christ is the only one who has been raised incorruptible in a glorified state of which all who are in Christ will one day be raised! Mary is awaiting this day right along with us as are Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.

Personally, I do not believe Mary’s DNA was involved at all. That presumes an egg fertilized by sperm, which is the Mormon heresy.

I believe God created the fertilized egg from nothing and implanted it in Mary’s womb.

Peace to you

 

[Cathode]

Jesus was born of Mary and yes, from this he became fully (truly) man. His incarnation without the benefit of an earthly father was necessary because the penalty of sin was passed down through the father (Adam).

In Gen 3:14-19, God lays the responsibility on the serpent ("because thou hast done this") and upon Adam ("because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife..."). Note that there is no such indictment upon Eve, only the consequences of the actions are specified (pain in childbearing and marital conflict).

Jesus was born in "likeness" of sinful flesh in a body that bore the consequences of the fall yet without sin. This is why the virgin birth was necessary and the means by which God put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

Adam called his wife "Eve" because she was the mother of all living. He did this after God's pronouncement of judgment and I believe there are a few things we can see here. Firstly, I believe that Adam was taking ownership of his own failure and secondly, he was acknowledging her position of honor that he perhaps had not fully acknowledged before. The man is the leader but he must give honor to the one that God has given him to lead! Many implications here that would make for a great marriage seminar and we have been going over much of this in our Wednesday Bible Study at our Church.

I know that Roman Catholics refer to Mary as being the "Second Eve" and there may be some parallels to examine but we need to be careful regarding how far we go with "typeologies" and so forth. Baptists often have this problem as well. I know that there is the "Official" Roman Catholic position along with certain factions that carry the "Cult of Mary" further than actually intended. Perhaps you can help to draw this disctinction?

I know that there has been a big push to dogmatize Mary as being the "Co-Redemptrix" and "Co-Mediatrix" but Pope Leo recently put a kibosh upon this as such seriously lacks any sort of biblical support.

I think it’s important to take the requisite time to cover this subject. Side tracks can be covered later.
Remember what I said at the start.

“I will do my best to very slowly go through the contemplations of this incredible mystery.”

Trust me, it really is worth it, for any Christian to contemplate this, regardless of affiliation. It’s a universal.

Back to Eve:

Was Eve’s creation entirely of Adam by the action and power of God?

 

[Cathode]

Personally, I do not believe Mary’s DNA was involved at all. That presumes an egg fertilized by sperm, which is the Mormon heresy.

I believe God created the fertilized egg from nothing and implanted it in Mary’s womb.

Peace to you

Can anyone else see why the “implant” idea is error?