Jesus' DNA

[LilyM]

It wouldn’t happen that way - God has a sense of humor, but isn’t deceptive, as this planting of false evidence of Mary not being virgin would be. I think he has too much respect for his mother and Joseph to do that.

The bread IS, in terms of physical properties, exactly the same before and after transubstantiation. But we KNOW that it’s not the physical properties of it that change, rather it’s the nature and substance of it. Just as you can have a person who has the exact same DNA and physical and physiological makeup as their identical twin, and yet ISN’T their twin.

 

[Della]

I don’t. I strongly believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and will argue to the death on this fact.

I’m just saying, I think it would be God-like humor that the other half of the DNA would be Joseph’s.

Would that ruin Christianity for me? Not at all, because my faith is stronger than what science tells me. Science might tell me that Jesus is actually not present in the Eucharist, because their tests show that the bread is the same before and after transubstantiation. I still believe it.

I’m just saying, “what if?” Would you leave the Church?

How sad if you did.

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy between science and faith that the Church itself doesn’t. No matter what theories scientists come up with (and theories aren’t “proofs” of anything), the truth will never contradict the teaching of the Church. We don’t have to choose between true science and faith, nor between faith and reason, as Benedict so recently attempted to point out to the Muslim world. The natural world is every bit as much a miracle of God as the Virgin Birth, it is our blindness that doesn’t allow us to see that fact, not science.

 

[gfarrell]

In my opinion, all of your replies are probably incorrect. If Mary gave half His DNA, I can see many teological problems.
I believe all Jesus’ DNA existed before his birth. IF Jesus is the WORD, and has existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit for eternity, He (Jesus) existed WHOLE before time, before Mary. The miricle of the Incarnation does not change, in my opinion, if He were implanted in Marys’ womb rather than using Marys’ DNA.

 

[Della]

In my opinion, all of your replies are probably incorrect. If Mary gave half His DNA, I can see many teological problems.
I believe all Jesus’ DNA existed before his birth. IF Jesus is the WORD, and has existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit for eternity, He (Jesus) existed WHOLE before time, before Mary. The miricle of the Incarnation does not change, in my opinion, if He were implanted in Marys’ womb rather than using Marys’ DNA.

The witness of Scripture and the Church don’t agree with your position. They both agree that Jesus took on his humanity at a specific point in time and was truly conceived in the womb of Mary, not merely implanted. Exactly how God did this we do not know, and probably won’t until he reveals it at the end of time. Until then, it is wisest and best to take the word of the Church on this matter instead of making speculations that deny what the Church has taught us.

 

[Sabda]

In my opinion, all of your replies are probably incorrect. If Mary gave half His DNA, I can see many teological problems.
I believe all Jesus’ DNA existed before his birth. IF Jesus is the WORD, and has existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit for eternity, He (Jesus) existed WHOLE before time, before Mary. The miricle of the Incarnation does not change, in my opinion, if He were implanted in Marys’ womb rather than using Marys’ DNA.

I could be wrong but I don’t remember that being the teaching of the Church. If I remember correctly, the Church teaches that Jesus received his human nature from Mary. Wouldn’t that mean that part of Jesus’ dna have to come from Mary? As for the rest, keep in mind God created Adam. Were did he get his dna from?

 

[gfarrell]

I see your point. Sorry about being so sure of myself.

 

[Zahmir]

I really didn’t mean to be all that heretical. As for the “truth,” sometimes science doesn’t accurately understand the truths of faith. That’s all I am saying.

No matter what Jesus’ DNA is, it is important to believe everything we have been taught, including that Mary was a virgin.

A lot of people hold on to creation, even though there is plenty of evidence which points against it. That’s fine. Likewise, scientific evidence could suggest something which we know isn’t true, but that doesn’t mean science fully explains how.

For all we know, God “borrowed” Joseph’s DNA and “implanted” it in Mary when Jesus was conceived.

Science should always support faith and faith should respond to the understandings of science, but faith always wins out.

 

[Magicsilence]

Hehehe, when I was little I used to think that the Holy Spirit raped Mary with God’s permission (I was sort of a messed up little kid). This thread made me remember that. If I had to hazard a guess as to what DNA made up Jesus, I’d say half was Mary’s and the other half God made. He’s God after all. Why couldn’t he make one little sperm just for this particular purpose?

Oh man.

What kind of Sunday School teacher did YOU have!!

 

[Gul]

If Mary being a virgin during giving birth is true, then her baby could have been her unborn twin, that remained as an embryo inside her reproductive system. When she reached puberty, the twin started growing.
She could also be a virgin during giving birth if she was sexually violated by someone once, that is raped, so during 9 months of pregnancy her virginity was restored, as it is usually a case with virgins being raped. Virginity dissappeares if woman has regular, ongoing sexual relationship. Since Mary’s husband did not touch her before pregnancy, her remaining a virgin tells us that he did not touch her after he learned of her pregnancy. Since she had other children after, that would mean that her husband finally came to his senses? There is some disagreement with this story : husband was too old to have sex, but then suddenly found viagra or something and produced many children?

 

[Gul]

Some people think that woman can not be virgin when giving a birth. Of course, she can, because some women have very stretchable skin down there, so nothing rips from one or very few sexual encounters, and if pregnancy came and there is no more sex ( husband went to war, left her, or died, etc.) by the time baby is to be born, woman will look like virgin, because slightly stretched tissue naturally bounces back.
This is not a miracle of any sort.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Jesus’ dna was all Mary’s. If you don’t know how God did it then you have something to ponder.

The blood samples taken from Eucharistic miracles are type AB and female.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Ive alwyas wondered what humans could do with DNA from Jesus, say if somehow his real blood was found. Half the DNA there would have been constructed by God himself.

That would make for some awesome gene therapy treatments.

Or it could spring the creation of a “Master Race”, whereby this DNA is introduced into genetically engineered children, hence making them “decendants” of God, and potentially direct in line of successeion to the Papacy.

There was an urban legend going around that someone had cloned a child from tissue stolen from one of the Eucharistic miracles and that child was destined to become the Anti-Christ.

However, that isn’t going to happen, since in order for cloning via cell nuclear transference (ie. taking the nucleus from one cell and putting it into an unfertilized egg cell), the donor cell has to be still living. Also, you can’t used a blood cell for this cloning technique and as far as I recall, the most recent Eucharistic miracles involved the Blood rather than flesh (ie. something like the Miracle of Lanciano, where the Host turned into heart tissue). Thus, no one is going to be able to clone Christ from any Eucharistic miracles.

That said…I remember some of the seers (might have been Anne Catherine Emmerich) who’d had visions of the life of Christ saying that Jesus looked very, very much like Mary, so it’s not impossible that God could have swapped out one of Mary’s X chromosomes and turned it into a Y chromosome.

 

[Luvtosew]

Man how come I always thought Jesus came from the seed of David ???, I will need to find where I saw that.

oh I read this in a previous post in this thread,

**The thing is Jesus’ DNA is readily available. There have been several if not many Eucharistic miracles in which the host or wine physically turned into the blood or body of Christ (as in heart tissue). **

There is no way to prove this as it can be so easily staged. I know of the story your talking about, I don’t believe any of their stories.

 

[vera_dicere]

I think half would have been from Mary and then God would have created the other half from scratch OR borrowed some of Joseph’s markers so there would have been resemblence. Granted, this is back in the days before genetics so those people wouldn’t have noticed anything off if Jesus had brown eyes, and Mary and Joseph both had blue.

 

[bmullins]

Man how come I always thought Jesus came from the seed of David ???, I will need to find where I saw that

Jesus did come from the seed of David, both physically and Spiritually. Mary is also a descendant of David, not just Joseph. Joseph not being his biological father didn’t make him lose his rights as a child.