R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels is fraternal, but it seems his genes were from his mother, Mary. It’s also noteworthy that Jews believe that their Jewish ancestry is maternal.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Joseph is Jesus’ legal father, by adoption (as it were). That makes Jesus a “son of David”. A “paternal genealogy” demonstrates Jesus’ (legal) lineage through Joseph.
Mary, on the other hand, is Jesus’ biological mother; she contributed her genes to Him in His incarnation.
Jesus is Jewish maternally; but is a ‘son of David’ paternally.
Mary, on the other hand, is Jesus’ biological mother; she contributed her genes to Him in His incarnation.
Jesus is Jewish maternally; but is a ‘son of David’ paternally.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
That reminds me of how we are children of God “by adoption.”
I love the meditations and contemplations this time of year.
D
Della
Guest
From Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on the genealogy of Jesus from Luke 3:
…in the genealogy in St. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in St. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Heli, in St. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Neri, in St. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. by Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David.
They do now because of the many persecutions in which Jewish women were molested, the fathers of their children born afterwards being uncertain. And as a the result of the Diaspora of the Jews. But in Jesus’ day the lineage was determined from the paternal line.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Very informative! Thank you!
D
DaveBj
Guest
The previous answers have been good. Here’s my take on the subject – Jesus would have shared DNA **with **Joseph, because of their shared descent from Mary, but he did not **receive **any DNA **from **Joseph.
G
GEddie
Guest
G
GEddie
Guest
Our LORD receiving HIS male human body from purely female DNA would be the reverse of the process in Genesis, where Eve received her female body from Adam’s male DNA.
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
D
DaveBj
Guest
D’oh!
(I think the Russians hacked my post
)Yes, thru their shared descent from DAVID.
T
Todd977
Guest
Jesus probably bore some physical resemblance, i.e., miraculously shared some of the same or similar genes, to Joseph so that people wouldn’t suspect Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… that’s precisely the insult that they did hurl against Jesus! We don’t see it now, but in that time and place, you were called “the son of <insert father’s name here>”. For Jesus to be called “the son of Mary” was intentional; it was a slam against Jesus (and Mary) and the fact that Joseph wasn’t His biological father…
Remember – Joseph hadn’t yet taken Mary into his house… and when she returns from visiting Elizabeth, she’s already three months pregnant. So, she either already has a baby bump, or begins showing one soon thereafter (and before she moves into Joseph’s home). You know how rumors spread in small communities, don’t you? The villagers knew that something was going on… and I’m sure they had unsavory conjectures of exactly what that was…
G
Gertabelle
Guest
Thank you both for sharing those thoughts!Umm… that’s precisely the insult that they did hurl against Jesus! We don’t see it now, but in that time and place, you were called “the son of <insert father’s name here>”. For Jesus to be called “the son of Mary” was intentional; it was a slam against Jesus (and Mary) and the fact that Joseph wasn’t His biological father…
Remember – Joseph hadn’t yet taken Mary into his house… and when she returns from visiting Elizabeth, she’s already three months pregnant. So, she either already has a baby bump, or begins showing one soon thereafter (and before she moves into Joseph’s home). You know how rumors spread in small communities, don’t you? The villagers knew that something was going on… and I’m sure they had unsavory conjectures of exactly what that was…
T
Todd977
Guest
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)Umm… that’s precisely the insult that they did hurl against Jesus! We don’t see it now, but in that time and place, you were called “the son of <insert father’s name here>”. For Jesus to be called “the son of Mary” was intentional; it was a slam against Jesus (and Mary) and the fact that Joseph wasn’t His biological father…
Although it is true that Jesus was referred to as the son of Mary once (above) in the Gospels, it seems he was usually referred to as the son of Joseph or the carpenter’s son:
And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22)
Philip found Nathan′a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (John 1:45)
They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:42)
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55)
V
Viki63
Guest
T
thistle
Guest
The genealogy in BOTH Mathew and Luke is of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary.
G
GEddie
Guest
Two different lines though?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Keep in mind the speaker. I’m not saying that all who referenced Jesus were trying to insult him… only those who were negative toward him.
The citation you give from John is from Philip, who is excited he’s found the Messiah. Naturally, this isn’t an example of someone trying to insult Jesus.
As I look at my Synopsis of the Gospels, I see that the other three references are telling the same story. Mark includes the “insult”, phrased in a couple of ways: Jesus is just a “carpenter”, and is the “son of Mary”. Interestingly, Matthew pulls back from the insult, and rephrases both references: Jesus is the “son of the carpenter” (which doesn’t impugn Jesus so much as it identifies his family), and mentions Mary, but just by way of identification (“isn’t his mother called ‘Mary’?”). Luke sticks with Matthew’s take on things.
Nevertheless, we see the animosity reflected in the way that Mark tells the story…
C
cfauster
Guest
Among attempts to answer such questions would be
A Proposed Biological Interpretation of The Virgin Birth
As you can imagine, that article, and such inquiry in general, are controversial.
Here are some criticisms of the article:
Biological Interpretations of the Virgin Birth
More Criticism of Kessel
Here are some defenses of the inquiry if not the entire article:
In Defense of Edward Kessel
The Last Word about Kessel and His Biological
Interpretation of the Virgin Birth
I think an article from which I obtained the following quotation summarizes things well: “… it is appropriate to comment here on an article in this journal which has aroused some controversy: Kessel on the Virgin Conception. His basic argument is that there are known biological processes which might have made possible the virginal conception of Jesus by natural means. Whether or not the processes addressed in that article could, in fact, have brought about the desired result need not be discussed here. The point is that such an explanation, if in fact scientifically credible, would be completely consistent with the mediated character of God’s creative work. That is to be expected, since one of the things that the doctrine of the Virgin Conception does is to point to the one who was thus conceived as the incarnate Creator.”
M
mikekle
Guest
Ive wondered about this aspect too, imo, if someone had been there to do a DNA test of the baby Jesus, I highly doubt it would look anything remotely close to human, it would probably be something no one could understand or explain.
I dont think Jesus was a normal baby either, I think as soon as he came out of the womb, he probably was able to have complex discussions, walk, and probably understood exactly what he was.
G
GEddie
Guest
No, He was a **human being, **a corpus humanum. As the Bible says, one like us in all but sin.
If he were not, then there was nothing special about Him in relation to our life.
As to walking and so forth, no, He’d have to grow useable leg muscles like everybody else. He was not Kal–El; he was a “Son of Man.”
ICXC NIKA
- Status