Did Jesus have any of Mary's DNA?

[HankD]

I remember as a kid hearing a song which had the words which went something like this:

When an immovable object meets an irresistable force something's got to give.

IMO Jesus relationship with humanity and sin is reflected in the word "flesh" or Grk. sarx which word only has bad PR in the Scriptures.

"And the Word was made flesh". The Logos (God) was made flesh (human). We (or at least I) can't fully understand this but we can all believe it.

Somehow Jesus the Logos "The Holy one" was made into the "sarx".

The conflict this caused turned into the Agony in the Garden and ended with Jesus obedience to the death on the cross. He could not/would not sin even though it cost Him His mortal life being motivated as God out of His love for us and out of His humanity in obedience to the Father.

It is a wonderful and glorious mystery which we will contemplate for eternity. The seed of the woman who entered our sinful bloodline (yet without sin) to save us from so great a death.

HankD

 

[Daniel David]

Ladyeagle, I would simply say that it is the corruption of sin that actually causes disease and ultimately death.

Since Christ did not have the sin nature, there was nothing within him to cause corruption.

Remember, even in death, his body did not decay. This was a preaching point for Peter on Pentecost.

 

[Kiffen]

The early Council of Chalcedon AD 451 declared that Jesus received His humanity from Mary without her sin nature and imperfections and saw this as a miracle. To try to logically explain this is to go where angels fear to tread. The traditional orthodox view of both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians is the view of the Chalcedonian Council which along with Nicea is viewed as the standard of orthodoxy regarding Christology.


The other option does border on the Celestial flesh view that Menno Simmons propagated. That view bordered on the heresy of Arius. Most Anabaptists later rejected Simmons unorthodox view.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by rsr:
An interesting defense of the hypostatic union, LE, but the author also denies that the Son existed before the Incarnation.

Well, for pity's sake! Please find that for me in there, cause I surely didn't see that one! Good grief.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Ladyeagle, I would simply say that it is the corruption of sin that actually causes disease and ultimately death.

Since Christ did not have the sin nature, there was nothing within him to cause corruption.

Remember, even in death, his body did not decay. This was a preaching point for Peter on Pentecost.

Thank you, DD, for pointing that out.

 

[Marcia]

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.

LE, you say here that it's the results of sin that cause thirsty, hunger and being tired, but Jesus experienced all of these! My point was that he had these results but also did not have a sin nature; that is why I said DNA does not carry the sin nature, just these physical effects, which Jesus experienced.

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

If Jesus had divine blood, what would that be? God does not have blood; He's spirit. Moreover, if Jesus had divine blood, he would not have been fully man.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Kiffen:
The early Council of Chalcedon AD 451 declared that Jesus received His humanity from Mary without her sin nature and imperfections and saw this as a miracle. To try to logically explain this is to go where angels fear to tread. The traditional orthodox view of both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians is the view of the Chalcedonian Council which along with Nicea is viewed as the standard of orthodoxy regarding Christology.

Right, that's why I posted the Chalcedon Creed on p. 3 of this thread!

The other option does border on the Celestial flesh view that Menno Simmons propagated. That view bordered on the heresy of Arius. Most Anabaptists later rejected Simmons unorthodox view

Good points.

 

[LadyEagle]

Marcia, you're beating a dead horse. I already conceded.

If someone would have posted John 1:14 about 5 pages ago, this thread could have ended sooner.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Marcia, you're beating a dead horse. I already conceded.

If someone would have posted John 1:14 about 5 pages ago, this thread could have ended sooner.

Oh, okay!

Wish I had thought of Jn 1.14!