Jesus DNA

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5875455:

Since the conception of Jesus was miraculous it seems odd to suppose his DNA was restricted to that which He inherited from Mary. Why should God be compelled to abide by the laws of genetics He has created?

To the extent God made Jesus “superman”, or something freakish like "a male with no Y chromosome, the strength of the incarnation is diminished; Jesus is important because God became like us, right?

Jesus clearly inherited human nature from His mother with all the strengths and weaknesses of her genetic inheritance. There is no question of being a physical and mental superman - although He clearly had great spiritual insight and powers of healing and prophecy. The only reason to suppose His DNA was unusual is His masculinity - which was obviously a necessity in a patriarchal society for such a revolutionary mission. Even as a man He encountered opposition which soon led to imprisonment and execution. What chance would there have been for a woman who condemned the Pharisees, threw the merchants out of the Temple and claimed to be the daughter of God?!

He was a man like us in all things but sin, shared our suffering and underwent an unjust, agonising death which few of us have to endure. What more do you think He could have done?

 

[Touchstone]

Jesus clearly inherited human nature from His mother with all the strengths and weaknesses of her genetic inheritance. There is no question of being a physical and mental superman - although He clearly had great spiritual insight and powers of healing and prophecy. The only reason to suppose His DNA was unusual is His masculinity - which was obviously a necessity in a patriarchal society for such a revolutionary mission. Even as a man He encountered opposition which soon led to imprisonment and execution. What chance would there have been for a woman who condemned the Pharisees, threw the merchants out of the Temple and claimed to be the daughter of God?!

Slim chances, clearly. They probably would have figured out a way to have a female Jesus killed. Imagine that change to the narrative.

Come to think of it, though – that would have fit in nicely with the Markan theme of “reversal of expectations”. Like the “reversal” of lowly women being the ones to meet the risen Christ first, and relay the good news to the community, a female Jesus would fit nicely into the “last shall become first” *leitmotif *of Mark and his derivatives. And, as a matter of genetics, the story is actually much more tidy – a kind of “divine parthogenesis” in terms of the genetics, a female Jesus would have just had Mary’s genes rendered as diploidy. No “missing male DNA” need be accounted for.

He was a man like us in all things but sin, shared our suffering and underwent an unjust, agonising death which few of us have to endure. What more do you think He could have done?

I can’t think of anything, except maybe leave some better evidence and/or records behind? Dying for the cause is pretty much as much as one can give, I think.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Slim chances, clearly. They probably would have figured out a way to have a female Jesus killed. Imagine that change to the narrative.

The point is that a woman would not even have had the opportunity to travel around the country for three years with a group of apostles establishing a community of followers and preaching revolutionary doctrines. Her execution would have been so swift her mission would have been doomed from the start.

Come to think of it, though – that would have fit in nicely with the Markan theme of “reversal of expectations”. Like the “reversal” of lowly women being the ones to meet the risen Christ first, and relay the good news to the community, a female Jesus would fit nicely into the “last shall become first” *leitmotif *of Mark and his derivatives.

A swift execution would have prevented any spiritual and social revolution.

And, as a matter of genetics, the story is actually much more tidy – a kind of “divine parthogenesis” in terms of the genetics, a female Jesus would have just had Mary’s genes rendered as diploidy. No “missing male DNA” need be accounted for.

I don’t believe genetic tidiness has much to do with divine love…

I can’t think of anything, except maybe leave some better evidence and/or records behind?

If Jesus was rejected by many of those who met Him while He was alive no amount of evidence will convince those who reject His message now!

Dying for the cause is pretty much as much as one can give, I think.

It is a source of inspiration for everyone who believes in “fighting” for social justice and peace on earth…

 

[Thomas_Dowd]

Inspect the DNA on the Shroud of Turin, Sudarium of Oviedo, etc., that should give us a definitive answer.

 

[JugglingReferee]

We are talking about the God who is responsible for creating EVERYTHING from NOTHING - including every single strand of DNA. Surely he could also insert whatever DNA he wanted via the Immaculate Conception.

You mean that when Mary was conceived, God at that time gave her future pregnancy the male DNA?

 

[roymckenzie]

So far your answers have been mostly of value and I appreciate them. I especially like that if we buy the premises that Jesus was conceived in an extraordinary way there is no stretch to say that God could have inserted the male chromosome.
I would think if you cannot buy into the premises that Jesus was conceived in an extraordinary way everything falls apart.

 

[pzona]

This is a very interesting topic. Lately it’s been rare for me to come across ideas like this, that I’d never even thought twice about.

I suppose the only explanation for his sex is that Jesus was conceived supernaturally. This, however, leads me back to a point which lies at the root of my problem with religion. Why would God make things so that they must be brought into question in this manner? Supernatural explanations are no good to people like me. There are things that science can’t explain yet, which I accept. But to say that Jesus didn’t need DNA from a father is absurd.

DOShea:

In the last century, a girl in Italy who was born without pupils in her eyes was brought by her mother to St. Pio (a.k.a. Padre Pio) asking him to heal her. He prayed for her and God gave her the gift of eyesight. With no pupils in her eyes. Science has yet to offer an explanation of how that can happen. Since that case exists, and science cannot even begin to explain how a pupil-less eye can see anything, it is reasonable to presume that ability came from some source beyond science

I don’t think this is reasonable at all. In the early part of the 20th century, scientists began to find strange results in experiments dealing with the properties of light. They didn’t simply write it off as being “beyond science.” They instead studied it further and their findings eventually lead to the development of quantum theory, without which we would not have televisions, good medicine, etc. My point is that science can’t explain everything. Any scientist can tell you that. However, it is always working on new ways to explain things, and a quick look at history will tell you that it usually finds a way.

I’m also going to have to call into question the legitimacy of this incident. Was it a well documented medical case, or was it an anecdote written in a Catholic record book? If you have any sources on this, I’d be interested to see them (out of curiosity just as much as verifying the truth of the report).

 

[tonyrey]

This, however, leads me back to a point which lies at the root of my problem with religion. Why would God make things so that they must be brought into question in this manner?

Because the whole point of life is to choose what to believe and how to live. If you are given all the answers you might as well be a robot…

 

[geometer]

Well, it might be a case of:

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

With complete androgen insensitivity a person with male DNA (XY) has a female body.

The only problem, is that it would require a miracle, because these women do not develop a womb.

But anyway it could be a problem like this…

 

[kimmielittle]

Because the whole point of life is to choose what to believe and how to live. If you are given all the answers you might as well be a robot…

 

[cr12392000]

WHY DO WE WORSHIP MARY AND NOT JESUS PLEASE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND?:thumbsup:

 

[Havard]

The argument the friend put forth is a just another way of questioning the virginal conception. We believe that Jesus was “begotten, not created.” When you beget, you actually impart something of yourself. When you create, you may merely make something in your image or likeness. Therefore Jesus’ conception was not analogous to our conceptions.