Jesus DNA?

[redeemed1]

Do you know what puzzles me? I posted a logical question that is not truly answerable since the birth of my LORD was a miracle of miracles, and it was reduced to a case for “evolution”? Now how sad is that? I knew the Lord led me away from here for a reason, but I certainly was not expecting this much paganism. Economy, ecology, and evolution; that is what this has boiled down to and I am out of here. How sad for those who think they are going to go to heaven. Jesus warns about this very thing in the Bible; oh, I forgot, you listen to the pope not the Word of God.

 

[RMP]

If Jesus and Mary have any DNA at all, it cannot be the fragile and easily damaged DNA that mortal human beings possess

WHY not? God can do anything.
I think it is funny that you are upset, you practically answered your own question yourself! But still only speculation and guess. Jesus had DNA, just like us…Die after a blast of radiation? He died on the christ and rose again. He allowed himself to truly suffer and die for us, to be truly us (human w DNA). In his glorified body I dont think he will try and die again or allow it, what is the point. That is probably why his body ascended into heaven, to avoid that possiblilty. His body ascended as incorruptable, glorified, unless you can prove different, that hasnt changed (incorruptable DNA, maybe). I can agree with your answer, but can only speculate the DNA is not fragile any more. If we hadnt crucify him, would he be alive today? Now that is a question. Would Jesus have died of old age? After all, Mary was concieved immaculately. So wouldnt jesus also be…
All forms of Jesus DNA we could possibly gather today from the world would be from sources of Jesus before the ressurrection. His spit, blood, sweat, ect from the shroud of turan, if it is real. So I dont know if we even could figure this out through science. And apparently we cant get Mary’s DNA either because of the assumption.

Only the eucharist can give us insight into answering your question. Catholic belief is the eucharist makes our bodies incorruptable. We become THE body of Christ. We do die, but our bodies will rise again. Just like Christ. This is the only thing we ARE sure of at this point.

I am curious to hear dissention among the bretheren here.
If you ask a speculative question, dont get upset about all the speculation…

 

[Matt16_18]

RMP:

Jesus had DNA, just like us…

You took a quote out of context, and misunderstood the point that I was making. Yes, of course Jesus and Mary had DNA at one time, because both Jesus and Mary once had mortal bodies. But Jesus and Mary now have glorified bodies. Are glorified bodies the same as mortal bodies? Does anyone know that glorified bodies still have DNA? **Catechism of the Catholic Church

1017** “We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

990 The term “flesh” refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.

999 … Christ is raised with his own body: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself”; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, “all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,” but Christ “will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,” into a “spiritual body”:

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel. . . . What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. . . . The dead will be raised imperishable. . . . For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.
1 Cor 15:35-37,42,52,53.​

What I find interesting about this thread is that many Catholics seem to be unaware that the Catholic doctrine about the Resurrection of the Dead means that not only will human beings have their bodies transformed from mortal bodies into immortal glorified bodies, but that all the rest of the physical creation will be freed from disease, decay, and death. Creation is going to be restored to a state that it once was in, a state that was free from death, disease, and decay. **Catechism of the Catholic Church

1008** Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. …

1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.

 

[RMP]

Im trying to say that even if we have an example of perfect DNA, no weakness, death probably would still occur (death occurs by a lack of GOD). But, the only real world example we can turn to for help would be MARY’s body. Christ is still alive in his glorified body now, but he was killed. MARY, we dont know if she died before the assumption. But we do know she was incorruptable, born w/o sin, the church tells us that. Mary did leave this world and accepted her NEW life. Was this by neccesity (death, old age, I dont think she was supposed to die) or did she actually choose it. I dont think our new lives will depend on perfect DNA, but on GOD himself. Does GOD need DNA to exist? No. Will we need it after the Judgement? We wont need anything, we will be with GOD. Will we have it after Jugdement? I think everything will be perfect then.

DNA…Does it matter?

 

[Charity]

…. Joseph’s line was cursed through Solomon, and Joseph is the adoptive father of Jesus.

Agreed.

redeemed1:

Mary came through Nathan’s line which was not cursed, which means He will be born into a family.

Agreed.

redeemed1:

…it is not Mary’s line from David who is in question here.

OK. Nathan and Solomon are BOTH sons of David. Mary is in the uncursed line descending from David, *through *Nathan, *through *Joachim.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

From the Tradition, we get Joachim as the father of Mary. Joachim (? Heli) was a devout Jew in the direct bloodline of David, (see the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3: 23-38).

…St. Matthew’s genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke’s, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke’s genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, “being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli”. This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke’s genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli.( Genealogy of Christ) This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin “Joachim”, a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist’s genealogy.

WOW!! I just found the above statement today. The bolded font is the exegetical counterpart to the scientific hypothetical explanation that Jesus inherited Joachim’s male genetics through Mary!

Tradition has it that both Joachim, and Mary’s mother, Anne, died when Mary was age 11, leaving her orphaned in the Temple. The liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church annually celebrates the memorial of the parents of the Virgin Mary, Ss. Ann and Joachim, on July 26 .

However, it is not necessary that the exact ancestors of Mary be known. For the purposes of our speculative discussion on the DNA of Jesus, it is only necessary that the flesh (DNA) role of Mary’s flesh father, Joachim, not be theologically or scientifically incompatible as a potential ancestor of the flesh genes of Mary or Jesus.

I am laity untrained in Bible exegesis, so I cannot, with any degree of confidence, further any deeper Scriptural discussion. Anyone here can help out? Or try this : Genealogy of Jesus through Mary.

(cont’d. in next post…)

 

[Charity]

(cont’d. from last post…)

Assumptions:

1. Mary had a human father.
2. Mary’s father, Joachim, had human DNA genetics, including a Y-chromosome.
3. Joachim was Jesus’ maternal grandfather.
4. Mary had a flesh (bloodline) genealogy.
5. Mary’s genealogy can be presumptively depicted in a genogram and a karyotype:

…Genogram…Karyotype…
…Joachim…Ann… XY…XX …
…l__________l…l_________l…
…l…l…
…Mary…(?Y) , XX…
…l…l…
… Jesus…(?XY)…

Hypothesis:
**(Luke 3:23)

…“on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli” :“being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli” …

**1. Could the Virgin Mary, at her Immaculate Conception, have somehow genetically received from her father, Joachim, a DNA copy of his Y-chromosome ?

2 If so, could the Virgin Mary’s inherited paternal Y-chromosome from Joachim have been genetically transmitted years *later *to Jesus at the conception moment of the Incarnation of our Lord, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us?

1. If so, could the source of Jesus’ maleness have been drawn from Mary’s humanity through her earlier genetic acquisition of Joachim’s Y-chromosome at the Immaculate Conception?
2. Therefore, was Christ, by means of the Virgin Mary, directly a genetic DNA son of Heli (Joachim), a son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jessie, son of Abraham, son of Adam, son of GOD?

 

[Matt16_18]

RMP:

Im trying to say that even if we have an example of perfect DNA, no weakness, death probably would still occur (death occurs by a lack of GOD).

If anyone had perfect DNA it was Jesus, and he died.

No matter how prefect your genes, no matter how much you try to live a healthy lifestyle, your DNA will eventually bring to you the decay of old age, and ultimately, your death. That would happen to you even if you died as saint and went straight to heaven after you died a natural death. Mortal bodies are mortal because they have DNA.

Why would a glorified body have DNA? What would be the function of DNA in a glorified body?

 

[Matt16_18]

Charity:

The bolded font is the exegetical counterpart to the scientific hypothetical explanation that Jesus inherited Joachim’s male genetics through Mary!

All the comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia is saying is that Jesus is a grandson of Heli. (In her visions, Catherine Emmerich names Anne’s husband as Heli . She said that Heli was later renamed Joachim.)

Your speculation that Jesus’ DNA was a combination of Mary’s DNA and her father’s DNA doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[Charity]

Matt16_18:

…Why would a glorified body have DNA? …

Dear Matt16_18,

Because all mortal human bodies have DNA by nature. Glorified human bodies still have a mortal human nature, PLUS the new property of of immortality. We don’t LOSE our mortal human nature when we’re risen, we don’t stop having our flesh human nature; we are raised in a new state, or better condition.

Christ came in the FLESH. Our bodies were created very good. I think it possible that we *would *have our DNA in our glorified bodies. If you think not, then why would we need our bodies in heaven at all…without DNA, our mouths don’t eat, noses don’t breathe, eyes can’t see, etc.

CCC:

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.532 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead **will give life to your mortal bodies **also through his Spirit who dwells in you.533

990 The term “flesh” refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.534 The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.535

Quote:
[The condition of Christ’s risen humanity
645 By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. …to recognize that** he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his Passion.508** Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body**: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ’s humanity can no longer be confined to earth, …

646 … Christ’s Resurrection … In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. …

659… Christ’s body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys.532 But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity.533 Jesus’ final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, …

 

[Charity]

Matt16_18:

…Your speculation that Jesus’ DNA was a combination of Mary’s DNA and her father’s DNA doesn’t sit well with me.

Dear Matt16_18,

Mary is an immaculately conceived human being; she is not a spirit God.

Mary’s somatic DNA already IS a mixture of Anne’s DNA and Joachim’s DNA . That is how normal human genetics work for EVERYONE!

We get half our DNA fom mom, and half from dad. All humans have a copied mixture of their parental DNA, which in turn is inherited from a mixture of their grandparent’s DNA, etc.

Jesus was Incarnated! He took on a carnal human body! It seems intuitive that he had carnal human DNA of some sort.

My question refers to the atypical, but scientifically elucidated phenomena of a female receiving and incorporating into her own cells, the information of her father’s Y-chromosome in addition to; instead of just, her mother’s and father’s X- chromosomes. But all of Jesus’ DNA would have been Mary’s! She would have previously received the genetic information from Joachim’s Y., then established it in her own cells.

 

[Keevin]

Mary would not have had a Y chromosome from Joachim. When she was conceived an egg cell (always an X chromosome) fertalized an X sperm making a female child, if she ahd recieved a Y sperm she would have been a male. If in fact she had both X and Y from her father then she would have what is called Turner’s Syndrome in modern terms.

 

[hecd2]

Charity:

Where are you hecd2?

I’ve been travelling and busy. Going to reply to this first and then earlier posts as time permits.

Hey Alec,

Look what I just found at the Creationist website Answers in Genesis. I’m, sorry to make you gag once again, but new analysis shows a 5% genetic difference b/t humans and chimps. The dissimilarity is especially pronounced in the Y-chromosome.

Something unusual happened in the prehistory of the Y-chromosome…I can just sense it…

I’m still pondering Mary’s genetics, especially her father, Joachim’s, inheritance, so I can ponder the question of Jesus’ DNA better…
Answers in Genesis is not a very good site to get your science from!

The draft genome of the chimpanzee is being steadily published chromosome by chromosome and represents a wonderful opportunity to conduct a comparative genomics study with our nearest relation.

The first thing that we have to think about is the fact that people bandy about percentages of difference between different genomes without understanding what they are talking about. There are several different ways of determining difference - in substitution rate within coding sequences and across the whole genome, in total difference (including deletions and insertions) in coding sequences and across the genome, in amino acids (remembering that redundancy in coding results in synonymous mutations) and in functionality (recognising that many amino acid substitutions will be functionally neutral). We will see different figures depending on what we are talking about. The conventional way to state difference is in substitution. And there is nothing that I have seen so far in the comparative genomics of man and chimp, or man and mouse that indicate anything untoward in the evolution of the human genome. People are vastly different from chimps, particularly with regard to cognition, and I’ll touch on that in a future post; but percentages of difference in the genome is not equivalent to percentage differences in nature or functionality.

Let’s look at a recent study on an autosomal chimpanzee chromosome – chimp chromosome 22 which is analogous to human chromosome 21: Watanabe et al, ‘DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22’, Nature 429, 382 - 388 (2004). They find that single nucleotide substititions represent 1.44% of the entire genome but that there are an additional 68,000 indels - the vast majority of insertions are inerspersed repeat sequences such as Alu in coding regions. Of 231 homologous genes in the two species on this chromosome, 179 have identical coding length and intron-exon boundaries and within these genes the nucleotide and amino acid identity is 99.29% and 99.18% respecively. Of the 179 genes, 39 show identical amino acid sequence (these genes include transcriptional regulators, metabolic enzymes, signal transduction genes, and genes associated with protein folding and degradation). Of the 140 genes coding for at least one amino acid replacement, none are expected to show gross structural differences

to be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

Now, here is the recent study on the comparative genomics of the Y-chromosome. First, it is important to recognise that evolution in the Y-chromosome is different from evolution on an autosomal chromosome since 95% of the Y-chromosome (the male specific region with genes expressed only in testes) does not undergo recombination in meiosis unlike autosomal chromosomes. Mutations on the y-chromosome are therefore much more likely to become fixed as its effective population is smaller and its gene linkage is fixed. The Y-chromosome in mammals, or at least in the lineage of primates appears to have developed a peculiar method for maintenance of integrity in the absence of recombination. Large stretches of the male specific region of the Y chromosome appear in palindromic arrangements - which is a stretch of DNA reflected on the chromosome by an almost exact reversed copy of itself (the origin of these palindromes is duplication, inversion and reinsertion during meiosis). There is evidence of significant gene conversion (non-reciprocal recombination) between the arms of the palindrome (average 600bp per meiosis), which helps to maintain the integrity of the male specific genes on the Y chromosome. There are eight major palindromes and comparative analysis between human and chimp indicates that six of these palindromes evolved on the Y-chromosome before the divergence of the human-chimp lineages five to six million years ago.
Rozen et al, ‘Abundant gene conversion between arms of palindromes in human and ape Y chromosomes’, Nature 423, 873 - 876 (2003)

The bottom line is that there is nothing untoward that I am aware of in the human autosomal genome to suggest anything other than natural evolution since the divergence of human and chimp lineages. If we look at the Y-chromosome, we find higher sequence divergence because of the lack of recombination, which leads to accelerated degeneration of the chromosome (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, ‘The degeneration of Y chromosomes’, Phil Trans R Soc Lon B 355, 1563 -1572 (2000)). But again, comparative genomics does not reveal anything unusual in the prehistory of the human Y chromosome.

Alec

http://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[RMP]

The bottom line is that there is nothing untoward that I am aware of in the human autosomal genome to suggest anything other than natural evolution since the divergence of human and chimp lineages

Since the divergence? (hypothetical). The bottom line is this still makes evolution a scientific GUESS and not a fact. So the debate continues. Words like suggest, indicate, point to, may validate, ect, do not mean divergence IS true.

So Jesus Christ, the son of GOD, evolved from a chimp? fascinating.

 

[hecd2]

Charity:

It should show signs of the Fall…Don’t you think that the difference between man & animal is great enough that the human genome SHOULD show a remarkable uniqueness? Or does man’s extraordinary uniquenesss have NO correlate in his anatomy, physiology, & genetics, save the 2% difference b/t us & chimp? Does our sublimity and radical differentiation from animals only reside in the soul?

Dear Charity,

I can’t see any special marks in the human genome. There is a very big difference between man and other animals in cognition but not in other respects. The human genome sits comfortably in the phylogeny of primates with no more or no less change than the 6 million years of evolution since the divergence of human and chimp lineages would suggest. Human physiology is no more different than one would expect for that period of evolutionary change. Human anatomy is different from other primates in the two or three things that make humans a special ape - bipedalism, a very enlarged brain and laryngeal descent.

But, human cognition is radically different ffrom the cleverest chimp. Genuinely of a different order. I have no reason to think that that has any source other than the size and complex arrangement of the human brain, which in turn can be explained by modest changes in the genome - we already know that modest changes in certain genes (for example in the homeobox containing genes such as Hox and in other structural genes such as the Hedgehog family) can lead to massive changes in anatomy and physiology; and that non-coding regions of the genome such as promoter regions, along with transcription factors and the influence of effects such as RNA interfernce can result in different patterns of expressionn of an unchanged protein. Most scientists are looking for the difference in human brains to reside in regulation rather than in proteins.

Take the current human genome and reverse it… Take it back as far as possible… What do you get? Ten thousand WHAT? Original Man reconstructed, Historical Man a posteriori?

Not quite sure what you are asking us to do here - the normal means for determining ancestral sequences is to perform comparative genomics across the group in question, say great apes, with one or two outgroups.

According to our faith, the original condition of man was BETTER than the current. Immortality, happiness, holiness, innocence, non-violence, harmony between the sexes, naked without shame, painless childbearing for mom, and easier work day for dad. What genotype could possibly produce any of these qualities? … A change in prostaglandin synthesis or nocioceptive pain receptors could affect partuition, etc…

A genotype that codes for small brains relieves the problem that modern humans have with childbirth…

Is it possible to populate the world with 3.5 billion people from the genes of one man and the one woman derived (maybe?) from him?

Yes it is possible in principle, but the human genome carries incredibly strong evidnce for the fact that the human lineage did not pass through a bottleneck of two individuals - in other words, Adam and Eve did not literally exist.

What would his gene map have had to consist of to propagate the current diversity of races, and variety of morphology; including the effects of evolutionary changes since then? Has this computer simulation been run?

Actually humans are relatively uniform genetically. Analysis indicates that the entire human lineage passed through a bottleneck of about 10,000 individuals about 70,000 years ago. There is more genetic variation within races than there is from one race to another.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

Error doesn’t have to be accepted to be recognized as error.

Dear Matt,

Indeed it doesn’t, and I don’t have to be a believer to know that your idea about the Grden of Eden existing in a parallel universe is entirely uncomnventional

The fact remains that your idea that the Garden of Eden is located in a parallel universe is unconventional and is not supported by Scripture, nor by the Church Fathers, nor by dogmatic and other doctrinal papal declarations, nor by the CCC nor by the Catholic Encyclopaedia

This is not a fact just because you make the assertion that it is a fact. That the Garden of Eden was not destroyed by sin is explicitly attested to in Genesis. I will grant you that describing the continued existence of the Garden of Eden using the term “parallel universes” may be a novel way to describe this belief, but the belief that the Garden of Eden still exists is not an unconventional belief in Catholicism.

The point in question is not whether the Garden of Eden still exists but whether the pre-Fall Garden of Eden was on earth or in a parallel universe. And I repeat that according to all the authorities I quoted above, it was on this earth, in this Universe. The very fact that you need unconventional language to describe your belief, is a strong hint that it is unconventional.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[Ghosty]

Matt16_18: Read Romans 5 in context. It’s ALL about humanity, and every Church document using that passage is about humanity. I’m not the one doing any twisting here, I’m simply using the very arguments the Church has. As I’ve stated time and time again, every declaration using that passage has referred specifically to humanity, and never to the rest of living creatures. The death being spoken of in that passage is the death of humans, and nothing indicates otherwise, and nothing the Church has ever declared in doctrine has ever said otherwise. I request that you show me an infallible teaching that refers to death in general entering the world, and not merely humanity. Be sure to cite the relevant heresy being opposed as well if you could.

The spin you are trying to put onto the word “decay” won’t work, because it cannot be reconciled with the paragraphs that I quoted from the Catechism, nor can it be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine about the Resurrection of the Body.

What spin? I gave you the actual Latin word being translated! There is nothing about rotting in that passage. Period. The word decay is being used in its form as a synonym of decadence, and this applies in all Church documents citing the verse in question. You can’t simply change the meaning of the word to suit your theory. Read the Latin Vulgate with a Latin Dictionary if you don’t believe me, or any Greek Concordance Bible. I must admit I find it perturbing that you accuse me of “spinning” when I’m simply using the exact definitions from Scripture itself. May I suggest that the documents you are citing, which were themselves originally written in Latin, might actually be using the same word as that found in Scripture (vanitati). I’ll even do you a favor and link to an online definition of the word: archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=vanitas&ending=. Now please, no more talk of “spin” on my part without actually using the proper words and definitions.

You are making God the author of death, and at best, asserting that God used death as an instrument to bring about the creation of Adam.

How did death come into the world prior to Adam sinning?

And you’ve yet to touch the fact that Genesis describes the death of plants to feed animals. Until you address that, this remains simple bluster.

Any theory of evolution that posits death was in the world prior to the existence of humanity cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrine that God is the author of life, not death.

Every scientific postulation of the Theory of Evolution posits this, without exception. The Pope calls the Theory of Evolution as a scientific postulation “more than a hypothesis”. Seems that the Pope is less adamant then you are on the matter, and he’s the one who took it upon himself to restate the boundaries of Catholic acceptance of Evolution in the same letter.

Let me see if I understand how you are interpreting scriptures.

I try to make it a point not to interpret Scripture to the degree that you seem to. I will not make it a point to tell anyone definatively what Scripture says beyond what the Church teaches. I can only tell you what science shows us, and what the Church tells us, and beyond that everything is speculation. However, since Scripture is silent on the matter of the Big Bang and Evolution, I wouldn’t ever put such terms into any interpretation. Furthermore, what you describe isn’t what I hold to regardless, as I tend to remain agnostic on matters that aren’t specifically informed by reason or Church doctrine. To do otherwise would be the height of arrogance, IMO.

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

Im trying to say that even if we have an example of perfect DNA, no weakness, death probably would still occur (death occurs by a lack of GOD). But, the only real world example we can turn to for help would be MARY’s body. Christ is still alive in his glorified body now, but he was killed. MARY, we dont know if she died before the assumption. But we do know she was incorruptable, born w/o sin, the church tells us that. Mary did leave this world and accepted her NEW life. Was this by neccesity (death, old age, I dont think she was supposed to die) or did she actually choose it. I dont think our new lives will depend on perfect DNA, but on GOD himself. Does GOD need DNA to exist? No. Will we need it after the Judgement? We wont need anything, we will be with GOD. Will we have it after Jugdement? I think everything will be perfect then.

DNA…Does it matter?

Dear RMP,

Could you define what you mean by ‘perfect’ DNA?

 

[Charity]

Keevin:

Mary would not have had a Y chromosome from Joachim. When she was conceived an egg cell (always an X chromosome) fertalized an X sperm making a female child, if she ahd recieved a Y sperm she would have been a male. If in fact she had both X and Y from her father then she would have what is called Turner’s Syndrome in modern terms.

Keevin,

If she had the chromosomal abnormality of an X & Y from Joachim then she would have Klinefelter’s Syndrome (XXY) with a male phenotype; not Turner’s, which is (XO) and female.

We need a geneticist/embryologist to help us examine other possibilities in accordance with our Catholic teaching of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Immaculate Mother:

1. ?Mosaic XX\XY
2. Chimaeric ?XX\XY
3. Other or Unknown mechanims

Have a happy Sunday,
Charity

 

[Ghosty]

Why would a glorified body have DNA?

Because it is a human body. The glorified Flesh and Blood of Christ has DNA if you believe in the Eucharist of Lanciano, The Shroud of Turin, and the face cloth in Spain.