apologetic value of blood types

[Ahimsa]

Now, if those tears really are Mary’s one would expect a consistency in blood type.

Not really. There’s nothing in Catholic doctrine about Mary’s flesh and blood incarnating within the statues.

 

[notself]

Now, if those tears really are Mary’s one would expect a consistency in blood type. From the evolution of blood types which has been proven to be correct via scientific methods, it is likely that type O is correct for Jewish people in Jesus’ day.

What statues crying tears of blood have been officially accepted by the Vatican as miraculous? Just curious.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Good question, don’t know

It turns out if you google, you can get any blood type you want for the weeping statues of Mary.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=mary+statue+blood+type+O

google.com/search?hl=en&q=mary+statue+blood+type+B

google.com/search?hl=en&q=mary+statue+blood+type+A

google.com/search?hl=en&q=mary+statue+blood+type+AB

or if you google, AB seems to be the consist answer, but based on the scientific studies into the evolution of blood types, type AB did not even exist until the 1500’s.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eucharistic+Miracle+blood+type+AB

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eucharistic+Miracle+blood+type+B

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eucharistic+Miracle+blood+type+A

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eucharistic+Miracle+blood+type+O

google and the blood types are all over the map again

google.com/search?hl=en&q=stigmata+blood+type+O

google.com/search?hl=en&q=stigmata+blood+type+B

google.com/search?hl=en&q=stigmata+blood+type+A

google.com/search?hl=en&q=stigmata+blood+type+AB

google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wounds+of+Christ%22+blood+type

So, all that is really proven is that any of blood type AB are fakes if they are before the 1500’s, likely someone replaced the original blood sample with their own to refresh the blood.

If the statue is to be Mary, then one would expect that statue to weep Mary’s blood type otherwise why bother?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Not really. There’s nothing in Catholic doctrine about Mary’s flesh and blood incarnating within the statues.

Then it is not a miracle at all. If that statue represents Mary crying and it is NOT her DNA, then it is not mary crying.

 

[Ahimsa]

Then it is not a miracle at all. If that statue represents Mary crying and it is NOT her DNA, then it is not mary crying.

Well, who said it had to be Mary? It might just be a statue miraculously crying.

 

[anthony022071]

You can be sure. The Luke genealogy is different than the Matthew genealogy. It is most assuredly Mary’s

Biblical scholars are still divided on whether or not the geneaology in Luke is Joseph’s or Mary’s.

As for the source of both side of the DNA, I am sticking with what I said before. Half from Mary and half, via the Holy Spirit, from a miraculous source.

Parthenogenesis, which results in a clone of the parent, played absolutely no part in it. Besides, no mammal is capable of parthenogenesis.

I see no reason why God would not have made Jesus take after Joseph as well as Mary.

 

[rpp]

I see no reason why God would not have made Jesus take after Joseph as well as Mary.

Neither do I. I just say the half of Jesus’ DNA came from a miraculous source. That God may have used Joseph’s is perfectly reasonable. He may also have used Adam’s DNA. We do not know and cannot know. We only know that Mary was a virgin when she concieved Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, the mechanics of it are not terribly important. Though it is a bit fun to speculate about it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Correct. There has been no record of parthenogenesis in mammals. It would be a Miracle if it was.

Therefore, it is at least as miraculously possible as your suggestion.

Hi notself, I recently read that there was parthenogenesis among sharks in captivity.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=parthenogenesis+sharks

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=887925&dopt=Citation

google.com/search?hl=en&q=parthenogenesis+animals

 

[Nevarlander]

Hi notself, I recently read that there was parthenogenesis among sharks in captivity.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=parthenogenesis+sharks

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=887925&dopt=Citation

google.com/search?hl=en&q=parthenogenesis+animals

Sharks are fish. I just learned this in biology class. Sorry,

 

[MelanieAnne]

Is this a good use of our time or faith?

If you want to use DNA to prove/disprove something, move the inquiry over to the Mormons & the Book of Mormon and see if you can find Semitic genes in Native Americans, as well as Central and South Americans. Because the Book of Mormon rests upon those genes, even if Joseph Smith never thought about that.

Of course proving the Book of Mormon is false THAT WAY may not gain zillions of immediate Catholic converts, but it’s a start & it has a lot more potential for success than some of this other stuff. Just a thought…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

So it is wrong to seek the use of evidence ( new data ) in service to Christ?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Sharks are fish. I just learned this in biology class. Sorry,

And, if you followed the last link, you will see that it relates to animals.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Animal Parthenogenesis in Relation to Chromosomes and Species
A. D. Peacock
The American Naturalist, Vol. 59, No. 662 (May - Jun., 1925), pp. 218-224
This article consists of 7 page(s).