Whose Dna did Jesus have?

foundationist

foundationist

Well-Known Member
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Here's a question -

Jesus was biologicall male. To be biologically male requires both an X and a Y chromosome.

Women have two X chromosomes. The Y chromosome can only come from the paternal line. But if Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then where exactly did Jesus's Y chromosome come from to make him biologically male?

Does God therefore have DNA?

The options are -

1/ God is human and has DNA which was passed on to Jesus, hence the source of the Y chromosome.

2/ God made up perfect DNA and somehow placed it within Mary to fertilise one of her eggs. in which case the Y chromosome was created by miraculous means.

3/ Jesus was made from the flesh of Mary and Joseph - in which case, he was illegitimate and not the Son of God.

4/ Jesus was made only from Mary's DNA - in which case, without a Y chromosome, he would have been female. Is this the greatest secret of the Bible (Christ being short for Christine, of course). ;)
 
The point is not that Jesus has a physical aspect but a spiritual one. Physically Jesus was no more remarkable than any other being no earth. What was remarkable was that he was not human essence but entirely Divine. So the DNA would be an irrelevant issue.
 
Would anyone believe Mary today?

Seems unlikely doesn't it. Can you imagine it nowadays.

"Good Morning Joseph. Sit down and brace yourself. Ready? Right, I'm pregnant, no don't get mad, I mean I know we never.. .. ... yeah .... .. .. but... ... .. but ... ... but this baby is the son of God.. .. .. ..so.. ... . so it's OK. I'm still a virgin honestly, this was an imaculate conception. This is God's baby, and he want's you to raise it as your own. Please believe me, I love you."

Doesn't bare thinking about really does it? Would not go down well with too many in modern society, one would assume a similar response at the time too. All I can say is, Joeseph must have had an incredible amount of faith in Mary, to just accept something like that. Or maybe your option 3/ is the true one - would make sense, that would sure be easier for Joseph to deal with.
 
I guess it requires the acceptance or rejection of the miraculous. The mysteries of birth certainly appear to have been so among the ancient peoples (or, more precisely, the men at least ;) ), so accepting virgin birth...hm, would that really have been so awesome in the ancient world?

Actually, virgin birth is a common theme in the ancient world. OR, more directly, Divine paternity is a common theme. All the major nobel families of Greece and Rome could trace their ancestors back to a Divine entity (usually male). Alexander the Great himself (especially his mum) made the same claim - that he was the Son of Zeus (Zeuas in those foundationist days simply meaning "God" ;) ).

But back to the issue of DNA - if Jesus was God in the Flesh, then wouldn't God have chosen particular DNA to create? Or is the entire DNA issue simply a way of rationalising an (irrelevant?) ancient tradition of Divine paternity?
 
I suppose it is entirely a matter of faith. For myself this particular episode is deeply troubling as I see not a faith account but of political marketing. Was Jesus born of a virgin? If he was then perhaps Alexander was too.
 
I suppose the issue of DNA is possibly too picky. :)
 
If one accepts the notion of immaculate conception, then the Holy Spirit, who impregnated Mary, had a way to create a Y chromosome. That seems no more illogical than the notion of impregnation by the Holy Spirit in the first place.

I know they've been able to stimulate an egg in a laboratory to create a fetus. Is your point that, by definition, all those fetuses have to be female?

I always figured that if spontaneous conception is possible in a laboratory, then he has to somehow be possible in the physical world, as well. That would certainly explain a virgin birth. But if it would mean that a resulting child would have to be female, then my theory is shot to hell!

I have done very little reading in the Bible and don't know whether or not there's anything about the Holy Spirit visiting Joseph or not. If one accepts the notion of the Holy Spirit's involvement, then it seems fitting he'd have whispered something to Joseph to allay concerns on his part about Mary's veracity.

Is there anything in the Bible about this? I simply don't know.
 
foundationist said:
2/ God made up perfect DNA and somehow placed it within Mary to fertilise one of her eggs. in which case the Y chromosome was created by miraculous means.
Click to expand...
The implication is that God has a particular favorite penis size, beard thickness, level of sexual arousal, etc., a particular favorite among every variation of traits which the Y chromosome codes for.
 
foundationist said:
Here's a question -

....Does God therefore have DNA?
etc...
Click to expand...

Given the biblical position that God created everything, then it follows
that God created DNA etc...

So it would seem that the creator of the universe could handle this...

-just IMHO,

Greybeard
 
Two words: Close Encounter.:)

Only joking.........I think. Actually, I know that the Mormons believe
God actually came down and physically conceived Jesus with Mary. Which had to have been a fairly close encounter. Of course, the Mormons have also traditionally believed that God was once a man like any other and has a "glorified" body of flesh and bone. Although the part of the doctrine that springs from the saying, "As man is God once was, as God is man may become" (which I may have backward, but I don't think so) may be changing as Gordon B. Hinkley, the current president of the church, considered to be a prophet by devout Mormons, has been quoted as saying that "I don't know that we teach it." (Time Magazine, Aug. 4, 1997)

But, if you are looking at the question from a more traditional Christian perspective, there are problems with this question any way you look at it. I suppose that, in the long run, one must either accept that somehow there was a miraculous creation of DNA that went along with the miraculous birth of Jesus without having a human father, or that the account in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

Although it occurs to me that since they didn't do DNA testing in those days, we can't be completely sure that Jesus had a Y chromosome at all. Stranger things have happened.
 
The problem with Virgin Birth's is that they were ten-a-penny in the ancient world. A virgin birth signified a direct relationship to "the gods" - and the nobility of Europe and the Near East had a funny habit of always being related to some divinity of other. Homer illistrates this clearly, and we see the practice continuing into the Medaeival period of Europe.

The key point was that the nearer you were to a divine (ie, virgin) birth, then the nearer you were to unquestionable rule. The tradition seems to be particularly Middle-Eastern, and gone through Europe via Greece and Rome.

Alexander the Great was a partcular example of someone who claimed direct descent from God (ie, Zeus).

In a historical context, there's no reason to take the "virgin birth" account to be anything other than an indicator of Divine authority. In simple terms, it's a propaganda statement. That;s the way that Divine Birth's have always been treated - Julius Caesar, I believe, even changed his divine ancestor for PR purposes.

The same problem applies to the claim of being directly descended from David - there's an easy argument to make that the idea of Earthly and Heavenly authority are merely propagandist elements inserted into the Gospel stories by men, for men, according to the routines of the ancient world.
 
although humans and plants all have a double helix the same shape and size the fact is the dna is very different in it coding . in fact everyone has different coding so jesus had his own dna :)
 
along that line (humans and plants with the double helix, but with different coding), I have a theory i have temporarily termed element L infinity. This is based primarily on three observations:
1) I've heard of (and felt) the energy of our universe...that ''spark'' between two people, that ''gut'' feeling, everyday intuition that people discuss and follow daily.
2) the proven test that sunlight and affection (whether with plants or humans - the point here is positive energy) leads to more positive and healthier behavior and growth
3) no matter how far scientist dig and discover there is always another element to their research that needs further explanation (this case, elemet L infinity)

The theory is...the Lord is omnipresent because of his Spiritual form. He ''travels'' through the universe (and us) on DNA modeled waves. Think about it...we are created in His image..how obvious. we believe that radio waves exist, right? Think about the structure of these waves...high peaks and low valleys...think about the structure of dna...could these radio waves be a product of the disruption in the Lord's infinite 'wave'?? (side note question - Can radio waves exist in a vacuum)? Wouldn't there have to be something there for the radio waves to bounce of off? Think about the waves (peaks & valleys) that result with lie detector test and on the heart monitor machine in the hospital. They all have similar structure/base, right? If we rotate these 2-d waves about it's middle (vertex, i think) to take up a full 360º, don't we pretty much get the DNA structure?
So, while science may be trying to disprove the existence of God, will we find that science is actually the search for God?
I have always believed in the Big Bang and a Christian God. I have always believed that the Lord made this universe unlike most of go about task...he did cover all tracks and literally left stone unturned. He gave people the choice to embrace and reject Him and YES, 'bad' things do happen...in the absence of Him!

Another thing, electrowaves has formed tumors in people, right? So on a relative scale, couldn't the element L infinity wave formed seed in a virgin mother? But instead of being formed by a destructive, disruptive force, that seed was formed by the most positive, spiritual force NOT conceivable my mankind.
People can choose to ignore our personal energies, nature's energies, or me...but that doesn't mean they or me don't exist.

I'd like to hear what some of you think...especially about some of the rough scientific facts/questions i stated.
 
It's probably pointless to speculate; G-d did it. G-d can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. So I'd go with "God put anything needed into Mary's womb." Then I'd leave it alone.
 
sachetm said:
If one accepts the notion of immaculate conception, then the Holy Spirit, who impregnated Mary, had a way to create a Y chromosome. That seems no more illogical than the notion of impregnation by the Holy Spirit in the first place.

I know they've been able to stimulate an egg in a laboratory to create a fetus. Is your point that, by definition, all those fetuses have to be female?

I always figured that if spontaneous conception is possible in a laboratory, then he has to somehow be possible in the physical world, as well. That would certainly explain a virgin birth. But if it would mean that a resulting child would have to be female, then my theory is shot to hell!

I have done very little reading in the Bible and don't know whether or not there's anything about the Holy Spirit visiting Joseph or not. If one accepts the notion of the Holy Spirit's involvement, then it seems fitting he'd have whispered something to Joseph to allay concerns on his part about Mary's veracity.

Is there anything in the Bible about this? I simply don't know.
Click to expand...
It was not the holy Spirt Who told Joesph of Mary but rather an angel in a dream. This is stated in Matthew 1:18-25 If you wish to read it The other times Joesph is mentioned in this Gospel He also has prophetic dreams so one can only assume this was a common accurence for him and he would have trusted it. If they where not common then he would have most likley still believed it.

As for the person who metioned Immaculate Conception that refured to mary's Conception without original sin not Jesus's. I still don't know why no one cares to realize that.
 
foundationist said:
Here's a question -

Jesus was biologicall male. To be biologically male requires both an X and a Y chromosome.

Women have two X chromosomes. The Y chromosome can only come from the paternal line. But if Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then where exactly did Jesus's Y chromosome come from to make him biologically male?

Does God therefore have DNA?

The options are -

1/ God is human and has DNA which was passed on to Jesus, hence the source of the Y chromosome.

2/ God made up perfect DNA and somehow placed it within Mary to fertilise one of her eggs. in which case the Y chromosome was created by miraculous means.

3/ Jesus was made from the flesh of Mary and Joseph - in which case, he was illegitimate and not the Son of God.

4/ Jesus was made only from Mary's DNA - in which case, without a Y chromosome, he would have been female. Is this the greatest secret of the Bible (Christ being short for Christine, of course). ;)
Click to expand...


If Adam is a Biological male, then any Y or X chromosomes he had, came from God.

Then again maybe one of these days, with a long enough swab, you could get a sample for yourself, or ask, if you dare. }}}}poof{{{{

best wishes,
ben Oddo
 
I said:
The problem with Virgin Birth's is that they were ten-a-penny in the ancient world. A virgin birth signified a direct relationship to "the gods" - and the nobility of Europe and the Near East had a funny habit of always being related to some divinity of other. Homer illistrates this clearly, and we see the practice continuing into the Medaeival period of Europe.

The key point was that the nearer you were to a divine (ie, virgin) birth, then the nearer you were to unquestionable rule. The tradition seems to be particularly Middle-Eastern, and gone through Europe via Greece and Rome.

Alexander the Great was a partcular example of someone who claimed direct descent from God (ie, Zeus).

In a historical context, there's no reason to take the "virgin birth" account to be anything other than an indicator of Divine authority. In simple terms, it's a propaganda statement. That;s the way that Divine Birth's have always been treated - Julius Caesar, I believe, even changed his divine ancestor for PR purposes.

The same problem applies to the claim of being directly descended from David - there's an easy argument to make that the idea of Earthly and Heavenly authority are merely propagandist elements inserted into the Gospel stories by men, for men, according to the routines of the ancient world.
Click to expand...

JJM said:
It was not the holy Spirt Who told Joesph of Mary but rather an angel in a dream. This is stated in Matthew 1:18-25 If you wish to read it The other times Joesph is mentioned in this Gospel He also has prophetic dreams so one can only assume this was a common accurence for him and he would have trusted it. If they where not common then he would have most likley still believed it.

As for the person who metioned Immaculate Conception that refured to mary's Conception without original sin not Jesus's. I still don't know why no one cares to realize that.
Click to expand...
Namaste all, didn't I hear this as the determination by one of the councils? That the virgin birth is a missinterpretation.
 
He had mary's dna, and she gave birth to him as a virgin. jesus was formed in the womb of mary by god and his holy spirit, and the word that is god became flesh and walked among us.
 
One of the first prophecies in the bible..

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

Since when did women have "seed"? Women have eggs...men have seed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top