JESUS body has received No DNA from Mary.

[Anthony Pritchard]

Surrogate mothers impart their DNA into the child they carry and while what you say might be possible none of your scripture supports your assertion. And key point; Why do you think it is important?

Maternal–fetal microchimerism does not insert a surrogate mother’s DNA into the child. It does not replace the child’s genome. It does not alter the child’s identity. It does not create a mixed or substituted lineage. It is simply a small, temporary exchange of a few cells, not a transfer of parentage.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

By your theory Jesus was XY because he was given birth through Mary. From whom did Adam get his X chromosome?

Ex-Nihlo, just like the rest of him.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Am I wrong if I see some gnostic leaning in OP theory?

You are not wrong, it is old Docetism and Gnosticism.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Would you have some consultation with your doctor about this statement?

Ridiculous and Ludicrous !

Eliyahu

Maternal–fetal microchimerism is a medical scientific fact. Look it up.

 

[Eliyahu]

Nothing, not one verse, word, letter or vowel in Scripture teaches that JESUS body has received No DNA from Mary.

That is the faith once delivered to the saints.//]

You don't know how to read my quotes. That's the problem with your understanding.
For example I mentioned Mt 1:20, explaining that Jesus was already born in the body of Mary.
If Jesus was born as a perfect human being, there was no chance for the ovum of Mary to be fertilized there.
Could you understand?
You never refuted each verse at all, then Nothing, not one verse. Even if I bring hundreds verses of Bible more, you wouldn't read and can never refute any of them!
If not, Read my post again. I mentioned Mt 1:20, Genesis 1:26-27, Col 1:16, Gen 32:24-30, John 17:5, John 8:56-58, Romans 5:12, Heb 11:26, and so on. You haven't refuted one single verse.
You could never explain if the Brain of Jesus speaking to the Jews is the same Brain of Jesus which encountered Abraham.
If you can, please try to do so.
Otherwise, I wouldn't waste my time with you any more.

Eliyahu

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You don't know how to read my quotes. That's the problem with your understanding.

I have read your post. The problem is not with my understanding. Your entire teaching that Jesus avoided Mary’s DNA, or had a pre‑incarnate human body, is of human invention, of human reasoning apart from revealed Scripture,

You are still confusing categories that Scripture never confuses.

You keep repeating verses, but none of the verses you listed say anything about Jesus avoiding Mary’s DNA, or about Jesus having a human body or human brain before the Incarnation. You are inserting your own assumptions into the text and then insisting that your assumptions are what the verses mean.

That is not exegesis. That is human reasoning apart from revealed Scripture.

Let me address your claims clearly.

1. Matthew 1:20 does not teach what you say it teaches. It does not say Jesus was “already born in the body of Mary.” It says the conception was of the Holy Spirit. Conception is the beginning of human life. You are reading your own idea into the verse.

2. A virgin conception does not require a human sperm cell. You keep insisting that Mary’s ovum could not be used. That is simply false. God does not need a human gamete. God creates the Y chromosome ex nihilo. The rest of the genome comes from Mary. That is exactly what “made of a woman” means (Galatians 4:4).

3. None of the verses you listed teach a pre‑incarnate human body or brain. Genesis 32, John 17, John 8, Hebrews 11, none of these passages say Jesus had a human body before Mary. You are confusing theophanies with the Incarnation. Theophanies are appearances, not permanent human nature.

Scripture says, “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Not “The Word already had flesh.” Not “The Word brought flesh from eternity.” Not “The Word used flesh temporarily.” He became flesh in the virgin conception.

4. Your repeated question about Jesus’ brain shows the category mistake. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Before the Incarnation, the Son had no physical body and no human brain. His human nature began at conception. To claim Jesus had a human brain before Mary is to claim His humanity is eternal, which would make His human nature a created thing and therefore make Christ Himself a created being.

That is not Christian doctrine.

5. You keep saying I have not refuted your verses. But you have not provided a single verse that teaches your position. You have only listed verses and then added your own interpretation on top of them. I cannot refute verses that do not say what you claim they say.

You have not produced one verse that says:

• Jesus avoided Mary’s DNA • Jesus had no genetic connection to Mary • Jesus had a human body before Mary • Jesus had a human brain before Mary • Sin is transmitted by blood • Sin is transmitted by DNA • Sin is a molecule

Not one verse. Not one word. Not one syllable.

6. Your position is not found in Scripture. It is human invention. It is a modern tradition built on misunderstanding biology and misunderstanding Christology. It is not the faith once delivered to the saints.

The biblical doctrine is simple.

The Son is eternal. His human nature began at conception. He took real human flesh from Mary. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was fully God and fully man. He was sinless because He is the eternal Son, not because He avoided Mary’s DNA.

This entire teaching that Jesus avoided Mary’s DNA, or had a pre‑incarnate human body, is of human invention, of human reasoning apart from revealed Scripture.

Scripture, not tradition, is our authority.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You could never explain if the Brain of Jesus speaking to the Jews is the same Brain of Jesus which encountered Abraham.
If you can, please try to do so.

Christ is God, God is a spirit John 4:24, Christ had no body/brain prior to his physical birth. The problem is that your reasoning is extra-biblical, your teaching is contrary to scripture.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I wouldn't waste my time with you any more.

Because you cannot. Your position has no scriptural or biological foundation to stand on.

The Body and Blood of Christ

The Body and Blood of Christ The doctrine of the Incarnation stands at the center of the Christian faith. It is the mystery of the eternal Son of God taking real human flesh, becoming truly man while remaining truly God. Because of this, any teaching that distorts the nature of Christ’s...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Dave G]

You don't know the Life Science at all, which is the problem here.

I believe God's word, and that is enough for me.

 

[Eliyahu]

I believe God's word, and that is enough for me.

I wasn't saying Life Science departing from the Word of God, but the Word of God doesn't contradict the Life Science.
Word of God says Jesus was BORN in her ( Mt 1:20), which shouldn't be overlooked because Nobody can be BORN in the womb of
a woman, but they are born when they come out of the women.
Nobody can tell < Before Abraham WAS, I AM> Only Jesus could do.
Nobody can say < I had the glory with Father, before the Creation of the World> Only Jesus could do so.

Eliyahu

 

[Dave G]

I wasn't saying Life Science departing from the Word of God, but the Word of God doesn't contradict the Life Science.

Man's observations about what God created, contradict what God ( who cannot lie ) has to say about a given subject?
I think you have it backwards, my friend.

From my perspective, mankind's "science" is limited ( by both our own powers of observation, plus our own innate hatred of God and His words ), and often does contradict what our Creator has to say about what He created.

Word of God says Jesus was BORN in her ( Mt 1:20), which shouldn't be overlooked because Nobody can be BORN in the womb of
a woman, but they are born when they come out of the women.

"Born" and or "formed", to me it's the same thing.
To me, born(e) means "carried", and I see that it's also a process which starts in the womb of a woman.

 

[Dave G]

Nobody can tell < Before Abraham WAS, I AM> Only Jesus could do.

Amen.

Because Jesus, who is the Word made flesh and did live among us as men ( John 1 ), is God...
The 2nd Person of what is often called, the "Trinity" ( 1 John 5:7 ).

Nobody can say < I had the glory with Father, before the Creation of the World> Only Jesus could do so.

Again, Amen.
But what you would have us to believe, is that He brought His own physical body with Him... instead of being formed in the womb by an act of God.

The underlined, my friend, is not what the Scriptures teach.

 

[Dave G]

God's word tells us that He was born of a woman, and was made flesh:

" And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." ( John 1:14 ).

That Mary conceived ( the natural process by which all mankind are then born into the world ) a child:
" And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." ( Luke 1:31 ).

That the Holy Spirit overshadowed ( look up the Late Middle English definition of "overshadow", which means to overspread, or provide ) Mary:
" And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." ( Luke 1:35 ).

To me, this indicates that the Holy Spirit took the place of a man in the biological process of forming a baby, for the purposes of creating a child. It's the only way it could have happened, and the Lord Jesus having both a biological right and a legal right to David's throne;
It's the only way that I can see, that the Lord Jesus can be both God and man, and lay claim to His father ( "forbear", in the earthly sense ) David's throne, by actually being a physical descendant of David.

That descendancy was through Mary, His earthly mother.


So...
God the Son was made a man, by the natural process, with the Holy Spirit Himself fertilizing the egg in Mary's womb.
No physical union was involved, just a spontaneous biological act perpetrated by the power of God.

 

[Dave G]

@Eliyahu :

To reinforce this, Paul even tells us here who Jesus is:
"... concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" ( Romans 1:3 ).

How could He have been "made of the seed of David" if He brought a body with Him?
Do you know of another way that the Lord Jesus could be legitimately referred to as ( and lay claim to being ) a "son of David", without actually having gone through this process?

I'm sorry, but I don't...
And because of this, to me you're attempting ( most likely without really knowing the ramifications of it ) to take away His legal claim, as a man, to David's throne... and negating the authority of God's word about it.
That said, here's what I see, and what the Scriptures have to tell His people:

All of the prophecies concerning the Messiah have been, or will be, fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ... Emmanuel, or "God is with us".
That is why He can say that He went through everything that we as believers go through, and that we can come to Him with our problems:

" Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

Because He is a man, birth to death to being risen again.
That is why I urge you to reconsider your position, and to re-read the Scriptures that tell us who the Lord Jesus really is.

May God be gracious to you, and may He bless you as you study His words.

 

[Eliyahu]

@Eliyahu :

To reinforce this, Paul even tells us here who Jesus is:
"... concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" ( Romans 1:3 ).

How could He have been "made of the seed of David" if He brought a body with Him?
Do you know of another way that the Lord Jesus could be legitimately referred to as ( and lay claim to being ) a "son of David", without actually having gone through this process?

I'm sorry, but I don't...
And because of this, to me you're attempting ( most likely without really knowing the ramifications of it ) to take away His legal claim, as a man, to David's throne... and negating the authority of God's word about it.
That said, here's what I see, and what the Scriptures have to tell His people:

All of the prophecies concerning the Messiah have been, or will be, fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ... Emmanuel, or "God is with us".
That is why He can say that He went through everything that we as believers go through, and that we can come to Him with our problems:

" Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

Because He is a man, birth to death to being risen again.
That is why I urge you to reconsider your position, and to re-read the Scriptures that tell us who the Lord Jesus really is.

May God be gracious to you, and may He bless you as you study His words.

Luke 2:48
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Do you read thy father?
In other words, Jesus was called Son of Joseph, even if Joseph was not the biological father at all.
Jesus was Yeshuah Ben Joseph. In case of Mary, nobody was claiming that she ( not Mary) is the biological mother.
So, Mary was called the mother of Jesus even if she is not the biological mother.
<<< but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. >>>>
Do you admit that Mary was born a sinner?
Can Jesus be without sin, if He inherited the sin nature of Mary?
Read Romans 5:12
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
if Jesus inherited any DNA from Mary, the death would have passed upon Jesus, and FOR THAT Jesus would have sinned.
Please note < For that> means < for which> as that is not conjunctive but a relative pronoun.
Jesus was free from any DNA from Mary, and therefore He had no death factors and could say < 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.>
Jesus was like Adam before the FALL and His body was like the body of Adam before the FALL.
Adam failed and his body received the death penalty. As soon as Adam ate the forbidden fruits, his body received the death factors and those death factors passed upon all men.
Jesus came to this world in order to rescue the whole race of Adam and His mission was complete on the Cross.
Denouncing any DNA factors from Mary is to confirm the body of Jesus without Blemish, without sin.

Eliyahu

 

[Eliyahu]

Amen.

Because Jesus, who is the Word made flesh and did live among us as men ( John 1 ), is God...
The 2nd Person of what is often called, the "Trinity" ( 1 John 5:7 ).

Again, Amen.
But what you would have us to believe, is that He brought His own physical body with Him... instead of being formed in the womb by an act of God.

The underlined, my friend, is not what the Scriptures teach.

If you understand How much Jesus worked even during the time of Old Testament, you can believe Jesus had His own body, and the Brain of Jesus couldn't be different between OT times and NT times.
Genesis 18:
1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: 5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

Jehovah appeared to Abraham and He ate the meal provided by Abraham. I think Jehovah here is the same Jesus.

Jehovah got His feet washed, ate the veal meat, butter, bread, cake, milk, spoke with Abraham and Sarah.
Apparently, Jehovah wasn't different from any human being at all.
I wonder which Godhead was this Jehovah but Holy Spirit doesn't have the body, then God the Father is also a Spirit ( John 4:24), but God the Father has a throne to sit on.( Psalm 9:4, 47:8, Rev 7:10, 22:3)
When God created the universe and the human beings, He did everything thru Jesus Christ;
Ephesians 3:9
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
John 1: 3
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Creation Work was done only thru Jesus Christ.
Now we review Genesis 1: 27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In the image of God the Father? or of God the Son?
Col 1: 15-16
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The Firstborn of verse 15 is the translation of Prototokos which means Original or Prototype or Mold ( many translated into Firstborn)
Romans 8
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
God made Adam to be conformed to the image of His Son and made him the firstborn among many brethren.

Mt 1:20
.......... τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου.
For the one in her is BORN by the Holy Spirit. >>>>> Jesus was already born inside Mary as a perfect human being!
God created Adam in the likeness of God the Son.
Jesus had a body which became the Prototokos for Adam ( Col 1:15)
Jesus said < Before Abraham was, I AM> which means Jesus speaking to the Jews was the same Jesus that provided the veal meat and got His feet washed. If the brain of Jesus was produced by Mary, He couldn't remember what happened to Him and Abraham and the fellowship between the Father and the Son( John 17:5).
Such fellowship is possible only when the person Jesus in NT should be the same God the Son before Creation or at the time of Abraham.

Eliyahu

 

[Salty]

JESUS BODY HAS RECEIVED NO DNA FROM MARY


MARY WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF JESUS BUT A SURROGATE MOTHER.
Jesus brought His own body from Eternity when He entered the womb of Mary.

(1) Matthew 1:20
1:20 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδού, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾽ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαβίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is in her is begotten by the Holy Spirit

Eliyahu

KJV: Matt 1:20 --
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Just curious which version you used? As you quoted "which is in her is begotten by the Holy Spirit"

From Strongs:

 

[Eliyahu]

KJV: Matt 1:20 --
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Just curious which version you used? As you quoted "which is in her is begotten by the Holy Spirit"

From Strongs:

I know that the most of translations rendered Gennethen as the conceived, even KJV as well.
But in the previous verses, gennao verb was rendered to < begot> which means <gave birth to> all the time, 39 times among 40 times only in Mt 1 alone. Only in this verse, they translated it into conceived.
In TR, γεννάω verb appears 97 times, among which 92 times it was rendered to begot, born, begotten.
In Gal 4:24 Mt Sinai gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
When KJV was translated, the Life Science couldn't be certain and Chromosome and DNA, Mutagenic Regeneration, Reproduction knowledge were developed rapidly since 1950's. Therefore there couldn't be right translation of this verse before 1950.
What I rendered is the direct translation from Greek NT, TR. There is no variance among the manuscripts, texts, for this word γεννηθὲν, TR, Greek GNT, W-H, N-A, all records the same.
Gennao is the word for give birth to or born, or begotten, not conceive which implies both the fertilization and pregnancy.
This issue is directly linked to when the body of Jesus started to exist, or did Jesus have no body before His coming into Mary ?, whose body was used for the prototype of the body of Adam, and which Godhead had the lunch provided by Abraham in Genesis 18, etc. I believe The Malack of Jehovah in Isiah 37:36 was Pre-Incarnate Jesus but the people argue that Jesus could went out without the body and killed 185,000 Assyrians. But the man who wrestled with Jacob was the special Angel whom he met in Gen 31:11-13 who declared He is God at Bethel (the house of God)( 31:13). In 32:24-32, Jacob wrestled with a man, and Jacob demanded him to bless him. Then the man gave Jacob the name of Israel, saying thou hast the power with God and with men and prevailed. In verse 30, Jacob confessed he has seen God face to face, and called the place Peniel. So, Jacob considered the man as God, and He gave Jacob the name of Israel. Apparently, God had a body, face, mouth, and so on. God had the body but He refused to inform Jacob of His name. I have no single doubt that this man was Jesus Christ before His coming into this world. There are many cases like this, such as the Malack to Manoa, Joshua, Gideon, Moses, and I believe Jesus explained His disciples about how He worked during OT times. So, Luke 24:44 mentions Torah, Neviim( Prophets), Ketuviim ( Writing) are reporting about Jesus in OT times, and the prophecy from the OT times. So we can remember Jesus worked during OT times

Eliyahu

 

[Salty]

I may have missed your answer -
but when you quoted Mat 1:20 (in English) (in post # 1)
What version were you using?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

But in the previous verses, gennao verb was rendered to < begot> which means <gave birth to> all the time, 39 times among 40 times only in Mt 1 alone. Only in this verse, they translated it into conceived.
In TR, γεννάω verb appears 97 times, among which 92 times it was rendered to begot, born, begotten.

Your biology is absolutely wrong, but the Greek argument you are making is even worse. You claim that gennao always means beget or born, and therefore Matthew 1:20 must mean begotten rather than conceived. This is not correct. The verb has different meanings depending on its voice. In the active voice it refers to the father begetting a child. In the passive voice it refers to the child being conceived or born. Matthew 1:20 uses the passive participle, and every Greek lexicon, every manuscript tradition, and every major translation recognizes that the correct meaning in this context is conceived. You are mixing grammatical categories and treating them as interchangeable, and that is not how Greek works.

Your DNA argument is scientifically incoherent. You claim that a full human sperm cell is required for fertilization, and therefore God must have provided one. This is not how biology functions. A sperm cell is only a delivery mechanism for genetic material. God can create the entire cosmos, the earth, and every living thing out of nothing, yet in your view He is somehow powerless to initiate a pregnancy without a human sperm cell. This is not coherent. It is a biological assumption being imposed on a miracle. This position is Summa Incoherentia utter incoherence.

Your Christology is also deeply flawed. You claim that Jesus had a human body before the incarnation. This is not the teaching of the Church. It is rejected by Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and every orthodox confession. It is rejected by every major theologian from Irenaeus to modern scholarship. The appearances of the Son in the Old Testament are theophanies, not incarnations. They are temporary manifestations, not permanent human embodiment. The Son did not possess human DNA, a human brain, or a human body until the incarnation. If He had a human body before Mary, then the virgin birth becomes meaningless, the genealogies collapse, the Davidic lineage collapses, and the statements that He was made of a woman and according to the flesh collapse as well. Your position unintentionally destroys the doctrine of the incarnation.

You also argue that Mary’s ovum was not used. If that were true, then Jesus would not be descended from David or Abraham, He would not be the fruit of her womb, He would not be made of a woman, and He would not be human in any biological sense. This is not Christian doctrine. It is not Baptist doctrine. It is not biblical doctrine. It is a Gnostic idea dressed up as Greek grammar.

This is wrong on every single level, Biblically, Theologically, Scientifically, and in every common sense meaning of scripture. This position requires bad Greek, bad biology, and bad Christology. It denies the entire orthodox confession of the incarnation. The text does not support your claim. The Greek does not support your claim. Biology does not support your claim. Christian doctrine does not support your claim.