Did Jesus have any of Mary's DNA?

[Daniel David]

Between Genesis 3:15 and Galatians 4:4, I would argue that he did have her DNA. Mary wasn't just the incubator for Christ.

Jesus had human blood. Hebrews 2 addresses the heresy that indicates Christ wasn't really human.

This would be my position on the matter.

Bottom line: Christ must be fully man and fully God.

 

[Ben W]

Think about it this way.

Jesus was fully Man.

Jesus was also fully God.

If Jesus was fully God then Mary is the Mother of God if she gave Him his DNA.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Why would it be impossible for Jesus to have Divine Blood that flowed through human veins and arteries?

Because Hebrews 2 says:

Verse 14
Therefore, since the children share in FLESH and BLOOD , He Himself like wise ALSO PARTOOK OF THE SAME , that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

 

[robycop3]

I look at it this way: when we talk about being saved through Jesus' blood we must remember how this came about...JESUS VOLUNTARILY SHED HIS BLOOD! Jesus, who is God, voluntarily became a man for awhile so He could live a sinless life as a man, thus providing us with His perfect example, became a man so he fould suffer and feel pain as we do, became a man so He could have blood to be shed through His suffering, became a man so He, after living a sinless life and introducing the New Covenant, could die and pay the penalty for OUR sins.

We should be thankful as our human nature can allow us when we realize HE, the REAL GOD, did something no fictional god has ever been credited with doing...DYING FOR HIS OWN CREATIONS, and dying a most shameful and painful death...so He could be raised from the dead, overcoming the works of the devil, then assuming His rightful place at His Father's right hand.

He was in a human body, and Mary is always called His mother. I have no idea what physical process God used to convert Him into a man, but I know He did it and that some day He Himself will tell us how. Who's to say right now what the makeup of His Deoplasm was at His incarnational conception?

 

[rsr]

LE, just as with DNA, God doesn't have blood. He's a spirit. What flowed through his veins was human blood. Why would anyone want to say otherwise?

 

[Michael52]

The Bible describes Mary as Jesus' mother. She was not mother of the pre-incarnate God the Son. She was mother of incarnate human Jesus.

Doesn't the Bible seem quite clear on this, regardless of various other extra-biblical doctrines?

 

[rsr]

Bingo.

 

[LadyEagle]

Got any more verses DD?

What about genetic defects and propensity for disease? Would these not have been inherited through Mary's DNA?

Am analyzing....

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA?

It is obvious. The one who created Adam created his DNA.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
"I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God". "

What has this got to do with theology. We should not be developing theology based on what it would or wouldn't do to the RCC's claims.

If Mary's egg was not used then Jesus Christ is not the seed of Abraham and your statement is contrary to Scripture:

Galatians 3:16[KJV] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.[/]

Hebrews 2:16[KJV] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The Second London [Baptist] Confession of Faith states the following in Section 8 about Jesus Christ the Mediator:

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. (John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgement in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same. (Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 )

It has already been posted but bears repeating. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D) presented the following definition of the Incarnate God, the God -man, Jesus Christ: [Note that the wording of the second article above is very similar to that of the Council of Chalcedon.]

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”

The use of the term God-bearer by the Council of Chalcedon has been corrupted by the Roman and Eastern Orthodox denominations to mean Mother of God. However as I noted in an earlier post: Mary is the mother of the human nature of the God-man, Jesus Christ, not the Divine nature. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, an eminent British pastor of Westminster Chapel during the 20th century, writes [God the Father, God the Son, page 262]: “As the Lord’s divine nature had no mother, so His human nature had no father.”

There are also some who wrongly teach that a completely new human nature was created for Jesus Christ [page 134f, The Modern Creation Trilogy, Volume 1, by Henry and John Morris]. As I noted earlier, if this were true He would not be the seed of Abraham, David, or the woman, Mary and is, therefore, directly contrary to Scripture. Martin Lloyd-Jones also clearly refutes this error by Morris and others in his book God the Father, God the Son, page 259ff.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA?

It is obvious. The one who created Adam created his DNA. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! So why wouldn't the One Who created the First Adam and his DNA, also create the Second Adam and His DNA from scratch?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Anything less will lead us into the heresy of Arianism. They fought this out centuries ago!

Dr. Bob, on the Internet it says: Arianism is the heresy propagated by Arius denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is exactly the opposite of what I posted. </font>[/QUOTE]The conflict of Arianism was over whether Jesus was MAN or GOD. Arian said all man and not God. Some misinformed Christians said all God and not man. The conclusion was that He was the son of Mary (duh) 100% man AND son of God so 100% God.

You are on the side that He was all God. You are as wrong as were the early believers. That is all part of the Arian controversy.

And, like I said, it WAS settled. Until this thread, I would have denied that ANY baptist would have held to either error and denied the God-man His position as, well, the GOD-MAN!

 

[LadyEagle]

You are on the side that He was all God.

No, I am not. I have never said or implied and do not believe that. Don't put words in my mouth, Dr. Bob. Please.

That is the same type of argument as saying a person is either a Calvinist or an Armenian. Everything is not either/or. Sometimes it is both.

 

[Marcia]

Exactly! So why wouldn't the One Who created the First Adam and his DNA, also create the Second Adam and His DNA from scratch?

Because then he would not fit the description of Heb. 2 - he would not be like man 'in every way.'

Also, that would mean that God made a defective DNA for Jesus because Jesus did get tired, hungry and thirsty.

DNA does not have sin so there is no problem for Jesus to have Mary's DNA. The sin nature is a spiritual separation from God, something we get as fallen men. Jesus, being God, could get Mary's DNA without getting the fallen nature since it is not passed in the DNA.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA?

It is obvious. The one who created Adam created his DNA. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! So why wouldn't the One Who created the First Adam and his DNA, also create the Second Adam and His DNA from scratch? </font>[/QUOTE]Because Scripture said the Redeemer would be the seed of woman [Genesis 3:15], the seed of Abraham [Galatians 3:16]. Scripture is either true or it is not. I believe it to be the inerrant Word of God.

 

[LadyEagle]

DNA does not have sin

DNA carries the propensity for disease which is the result of sin. Through the study of DNA, a person can find out if they have the cancer gene, and other genes of disease and defects as well. So, yes, I would say DNA has sin and the effects of sin.

Also, that would mean that God made a defective DNA for Jesus because Jesus did get tired, hungry and thirsty.

DNA is not what makes a person get thirsty, tired, and hungry. The results of sin is what causes humans to be tired, thirsty, and hungry. Glorified bodies will not need sleep, water, or food. So that dog won't hunt.

It is entirely possible to have Divine blood flowing through human veins. The life is in the blood.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

If the Egg of Mary was not used (supplying her DNA)how could the geneology of Jesus be traced back to Abraham or David?Was,nt Abraham promised that the Redeemer would come through his seed?

 

[LadyEagle]

Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

 

[LadyEagle]

Okay, done analyzing:

God did not just live in flesh as a man, but the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14). God is now a man in addition to being Spirit. God becoming a man does not mean He no longer exists as the omnipresent Spirit, but it does mean that His existence as a man is both authentic and permanent. Jesus did not merely put on a "robe of flesh" when He came to this earth. There was no separation of natures within Jesus as though He is two separate individuals living in one body. The flesh of Christ is not a mere shell that Deity moves within, and neither is Jesus' humanity independent of the His deity. In Christ the Spirit of God was inextricably and inseparably joined with the humanity.

&lt;snip&gt;

Mary was not a mere surrogate mother for a flesh created by God. She was not some sort of incubator which contained a 'heavenly flesh.' The flesh truly originated from Mary's egg. If Jesus did not receive His humanity from Mary, then He could not be said to have been "of the seed of David." The Scripture clearly affirms the contribution Mary made to the existence of Jesus. Galatians 4:4 says, 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.' The Greek word translated 'of' in the phrase 'of a woman' is ek. This word means 'out of.' Jesus was made out of a woman, He wasn't just born out of one. The author of Hebrews said 'he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham' (Hebrews 2:16). David was promised that it was through his genetic line that God would raise up the Messiah to rule on his throne (Psalm 132:11). If Mary was just an incubator for a created flesh, Jesus could have still been considered a genuine human being (Adam was a created man that didn't have a human mother but yet he was still completely human), but He wouldn't have been part of the Adamic race. If He was not part of the Adamic race, He couldn't save those who were separated from God because of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-21; Hebrews 2:9-10, 14-18). Mary undoubtedly contributed to the humanity of Christ.

Source

Case closed.

 

[rsr]

An interesting defense of the hypostatic union, LE, but the author also denies that the Son existed before the Incarnation.