DNA of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter hansard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hansard

Guest
If Jesus’ father was God (via the Spirit, etc), then his only genetic material must have come through his mother’s line. Therefore, his whole racial composition and every aspect of his earthly (human) being must have come from his mother only.

If so, he must have been a rather singular figure, probably highly unusual in appearance.

Otherwise, we are left with the slightly insupportable contention that God has a genetic composition which was transferred via miracle on that day.

The easier explanation (the “get-out clause”) is that God decided to impart some miracle genetic material on that one occasion, just to deal with the biological necessities of creating a child.

There’s no need to even admit the need of a sperm. If such things can be done miraculously, then all bets are off. Anything can be done. A zygote could be formed by miracle alone, completely bypassing physical matters.

What’s the theology on this?

Given that the church rigidly supports the virgin conception, tied with the fully-god, fully-human idea of Jesus, is there any teaching on the genetic aspects of Jesus. Or is the science a little too recent? Not being disrespectful, but I’m guessing that the church might not be terribly concerned with such matters.

Happy to be proven wrong.
 
Oh! I thought of this, too! My thought was (because I’m in awe of science, God the Creator-style) it must have been very special blood… ❤️
 
The answer is in Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary. He said, “You will conceive of the Holy Spirit.” If any genetic material needed to be provided other than Mary’s the Holy Spirit could have done that. That will have to remain speculation. But, the Church plainly teaches that Mary conceived Jesus in her womb. He wasn’t a mere implant. The Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary and she conceived. Exactly how God did it is a mystery of faith.
 
Pax Christi!

A friend of mine (Plymouth Brethren) believes that Original Sin is carried via DNA, and that our Lord had none. Maybe our Lady also had none. I’ll ask him about it and get back to you.

God bless.
 
hansard said:
If Jesus’ father was God (via the Spirit, etc), then his only genetic material must have come through his mother’s line. Therefore, his whole racial composition and every aspect of his earthly (human) being must have come from his mother only.

If so, he must have been a rather singular figure, probably highly unusual in appearance.

Otherwise, we are left with the slightly insupportable contention that God has a genetic composition which was transferred via miracle on that day.
Click to expand...
What seems like more of a prima facie conflict is that if Jesus had all of and only Mary’s DNA, then he would have two X chromosomes, and he would be female.

But I don’t really think it is an issue. What I would object to is that the proposition of faith that “Jesus received the fullness of his humanity from Mary” (to which Catholics are bound to assent) should be read as “Jesus was genetically identical to Mary.” That is a “scientistic” reading, I would suggest.

Strictly speaking, Jesus’s Y chromosome could have been anything. Perhaps Joseph’s. Perhaps no one’s. (We don’t need to suppose that God, ie. the divine substance, has a genetic composition.)

(Someone might react negatively to my suggesting that Jesus could have had Joseph’s DNA, as someone did the one other time this topic was broached. But I would retort that to do so is to buy into the scientistic thinking that I am rejecting, namely that to possess someone’s genes is to possess their “humanity.”)
 
God is omnipotent.
It is His Word that makes reality what it is.
The material world was created and is maintained by God.
He can do as He choses; He is God.
Wild speculations on matters that can never be known or proven - good luck with that.
I will pray that we all grow in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
 
Why don’t they take a sample from one of the Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano, and test the sample for its DNA composition?

It would answer e above question, as well as affirm the Faith once and for all in the eyes of science.
 
Soniczelda_514 said:
Why don’t they take a sample from one of the Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano, and test the sample for its DNA composition?

It would answer e above question, as well as affirm the Faith once and for all in the eyes of science.
Click to expand...
I would second that idea, VERY NICE!
 
Soniczelda_514 said:
Why don’t they take a sample from one of the Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano, and test the sample for its DNA composition?

It would answer e above question, as well as affirm the Faith once and for all in the eyes of science.
Click to expand...
Science doesn’t recognize Eucharistic miracles nor would it accept a sample as that of Jesus of Nazereth who died 2000+ years ago–speaking as they would see it.

A better source would be the buriel face cloth: shroud.com/guscin.htm. Still, scientists would not accept it as proof of anything since they would dispute that the blood was that of Jesus.

This is a matter we must take on faith. As Aloysium pointed out, God can do whatever he pleases. It would not be hard for him to complete whatever genetic material would be lacking in Mary’s egg to create a male child in her womb.
 
What seems like more of a prima facie conflict is that if Jesus had all of and only Mary’s DNA, then he would have two X chromosomes, and he would be female.
Click to expand...
Certainly the same God who allowed a human conception to occur without sexual congress would not be flummoxed by this issue.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Soniczelda_514 said:
Why don’t they take a sample from one of the Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano, and test the sample for its DNA composition?

It would answer e above question, as well as affirm the Faith once and for all in the eyes of science.
Click to expand...
👍

Actually, it’s already happening. Just with a different Eucharistic miracle (Eucharistic miracle in Argentina 1999).

You might also be interested in this -

Science Tests Faith - youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

They found that the blood had no DNA coding among many other amazing results 🙂

The book in my Signature ‘Reason to Believe by Ron Ron Tesoriero’ and another one ‘Unseen - New Evidence’ are very good regarding the scientific studies on these miracles, I strongly recommend them. 👍

http://s2.postimg.org/5tzxmgnet/Eng_RTB_96dpi_thumb.jpg

Reason to Believe
A statue weeps and bleeds in the same city that Catalina Rivas writes profound teachings she says are dictated by Christ. Elsewhere, a communion host (bread) changes to living flesh. Are these claims true? What does Science have to say? This is a fascinating journey of Australian lawyer, Ron Tesoriero, in pursuit of answers. On the way he invites a well-known and highly respected journalist Mike Willesee to join him. What they discover will confront the mind and heart of every reader.

http://s15.postimg.org/mzvgbd747/unseen.jpg

Unseen – New Evidence
In Buenos Aires in 1999, Pope Francis, then known as Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio, sought a scientific investigation into something very unusual. A Communion Host appeared to have inexplicably changed to what looked like flesh and blood. First published in “Reason to Believe” in 2007, and then presented to Pope Benedict XVI and geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project in 2009, the startling scientific evidence inspired Ron Tesoriero, an Australian lawyer and documentary film producer, and co-author Lee Han, to follow where the evidence led. And where it led is remarkable. This new book, “UNSEEN – New Evidence” presents not only a convincing basis for the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist but is the most serious scientific challenge yet to contemporary thinking on the origin of life in the universe.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Since we are only just beginning to understand DNA and genetics, just imagine the things will know about it within the next 100 or so years!!!

I think this could be a double edged sword, as in good that we are learning about our human nature and what makes us…US, but may be a bad thing to know too much about as it could enable scientists to do all kinds of crazy things, OR make some discovery that would seemingly be a bad thing for christianity…I could actually see this happening in our modern world, They would try to use this new knowledge in an attempt to disprove God and all he did.

They are already experimenting with the new found ‘god particle’…dont even want to think where this will lead many years down the road!
 
mikekle said:
Since we are only just beginning to understand DNA and genetics, just imagine the things will know about it within the next 100 or so years!!!

I think this could be a double edged sword, as in good that we are learning about our human nature and what makes us…US, but may be a bad thing to know too much about as it could enable scientists to do all kinds of crazy things, OR make some discovery that would seemingly be a bad thing for christianity…I could actually see this happening in our modern world, They would try to use this new knowledge in an attempt to disprove God and all he did.

They are already experimenting with the new found ‘god particle’…dont even want to think where this will lead many years down the road!
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that no one can disprove God. Am I wrong?
 
mikekle said:
They are already experimenting with the new found ‘god particle’…dont even want to think where this will lead many years down the road!
Click to expand...
The Higgs boson has nothing to do with God. It has been called the “god particle” because it was a significant discovery, not because it has theological implications.
 
polytropos said:
The Higgs boson has nothing to do with God. It has been called the “god particle” because it was a significant discovery, not because it has theological implications.
Click to expand...
It appears though that earliest use of the word “god” in reference to the particle was as part of a phrase where the person was swearing, frustrated with how difficult it was to find. It was shortened because “God particle” sells newspapers. It’s discovery is not that significant other than it lends further support to the basic theory. Nothing is going to change as a result.
 
hansard said:
If Jesus’ father was God (via the Spirit, etc), then his only genetic material must have come through his mother’s line. Therefore, his whole racial composition and every aspect of his earthly (human) being must have come from his mother only.

If so, he must have been a rather singular figure, probably highly unusual in appearance.

Otherwise, we are left with the slightly insupportable contention that God has a genetic composition which was transferred via miracle on that day.

The easier explanation (the “get-out clause”) is that God decided to impart some miracle genetic material on that one occasion, just to deal with the biological necessities of creating a child.

There’s no need to even admit the need of a sperm. If such things can be done miraculously, then all bets are off. Anything can be done. A zygote could be formed by miracle alone, completely bypassing physical matters.

What’s the theology on this?

Given that the church rigidly supports the virgin conception, tied with the fully-god, fully-human idea of Jesus, is there any teaching on the genetic aspects of Jesus. Or is the science a little too recent? Not being disrespectful, but I’m guessing that the church might not be terribly concerned with such matters.

Happy to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Find a genuine relic of Jesus, with blood or other tissue: umbilicus, foreskin, Turin Shroud or whatever and do a DNA sequencing. If you can find more than one genuine relic, then DNA sequencing will allow the detection of some fake relics.

$0.02

rossum
 
rossum said:
Find a genuine relic of Jesus, with blood or other tissue: umbilicus, foreskin, Turin Shroud or whatever and do a DNA sequencing. If you can find more than one genuine relic, then DNA sequencing will allow the detection of some fake relics.

$0.02

rossum
Click to expand...
👍

It’s already being done.

Please see previous post [#12](Science Tests Faith -
) 🙂

The books ‘Reason to Believe’ and ‘Unseen - New Evidence’ go into great detail on the amazing results from the scientific studies on the Eucharistic miracles and Shroud of Turin and many others that I had previously never heard of with incredible results.

Science Tests Faith - youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
rossum said:
No. That was not a direct relic of Jesus, such as His umbilicus.

rossum
Click to expand...
The are currently doing scientific studies on the Shroud of Turin, however, may I ask why it has to be a direct relic and not the scientific results on the Eucharistic miracles?

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top