Jesus DNA?

[Matt16_18]

Charity:

… Because all mortal human bodies have DNA by nature.

Of course mortal bodies have DNA. DNA makes us slaves of nature. I would say that the mortal bodies have DNA because mortal bodies are part of a fallen universe. There is no reason to suppose that Adam and Eve had bodies infected with DNA before they fell, or that we will have DNA after we are resurrected.

…without DNA, our mouths don’t eat, noses don’t breathe, eyes can’t see, etc

In the fallen world, this is normally true. But the physics that govern the fallen world are not absolutes, and these laws of nature are passing away. I read once about a miraculous cure that involved the case of a person born without an optic nerve. After the miracle, the person could see, but the optic nerve was still missing in the person. I believe that this is one of the well documented cases of miracles at Lourdes. Seeing isn’t absolutely dependent on having DNA.

Glorified human bodies still have a mortal human nature, PLUS the new property 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.

No doubt our resurrected bodies are going to be immortal. But they will have supernatural properties that mortal bodies cannot have. I suppose that I just have a much higher expectation for our resurrected bodies than these bodies being just ordinary mortal bodies that cannot die. **Catechism of the Catholic Church

999** … Christ “will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,” into a “spiritual body” …

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. 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.

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.

I am surprised that you would think that I need to know this. Yes, of course, all this is true.

 

[hecd2]

(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?

Dear Charity,

Whatever speculation we choose for the means by which Jesus derived His Y-chromosome it cannot be only through Mary, if Mary was a normal woman. If Mary was a mosaic as you describe above, her original zygote would have been male or a Klinefelter male before the non-disjuction mutation. If one lineage of her cells, those retaining the y-chromosomes formed her reproductive organs, then the presence of the Y-chromosome would cause her to develop testes and sperm. If she also developed ovaries and a womb, as she must have done to bear Jesus, her ova would not contain Y-chromosomes.

So we are back to the possibility of Mary as a gonadal hermaphrodite, either through mosaicism or chimaerism or through other endocrinal abnormalities. In these known cases, gonadal dysgenesis leads to the presence of both testes and ovaries or an ovotestis.True hermaphrodirism with testicular development is found most commonly in 46,XX individuals, but obviously in this karyotype ther is no Y-chromosome in any cell of the body.

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

 

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty:

Read Romans 5 in context. It’s ALL about humanity …

It is about both humanity and the world. Adam’s sin brought death into the world.

“through one man … sin entered the world, and through sin death”
Roman 5:12

… 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

The word “decay” that we are talking about occurs not in Romans 5, but in Romans 8:21, where Romans 8:21 says: “creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay”. Read that verse in context. Paul is saying that creation is groaning until it is released from the bondage to decay, and that this release from futility cannot occur until men receive glorified bodies.

I have already posted in this thread several quotes from the Catechism that references Romans 8:21 either directly or in footnotes. When the Catechism references this verse, it simply cannot be reconciled with the spin that you are putting on the word “decay”, a spin that says that death was in the world before the Fall. The Catechism is quite clear, the physical universe is going to be *restored * to a state that it enjoyed before the Fall, a state of complete freedom from death, disease, and decay.

I don’t see why you to continue to assert that your spin on Romans 8:21 “applies in all Church documents citing the verse”. Is not the Catechism of the Catholic Church a Church document? Yes, I know that you think that Catechism can be in error, but you have yet to quote a single document of the Church that puts your spin on the word “decay” as it applies to Romans 8:21.

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

The very fact that you need unconventional language to describe your belief, is a strong hint that it is unconventional.

This is a silly argument. We are discussing the DNA of Jesus in this thread! Show me any “conventional” source that ever discussed the DNA of Jesus before 1950. Must I conclude that Jesus cannot have DNA just because the word “DNA” was never used by the Church Fathers?

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

hecd2:

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.

Dear RMP,

I used the term ‘suggest’ because I am a cautious scientist. However, in scientific terms, there is no doubt whatsoever that humans and chimps had a common ancestor around 5 million years ago.

Perhaps you would like to explain the fact that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that are still separate in other great apes. For more, see here:

evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Furthermore, there is this consideration that I have posted before. Humans form a monophyletic genetic group with other primates. Take for example the case of L-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO) - this is the final enzyme used by all mammals in a chain of four enzymes that synthesise vitamin C. All mammals express GULO and biosynthesise vitamin C, except primates (which includes humans), where the GULO gene is irreparably broken by an ancestral mutation - humans and other primates are unable to synthesise vitamin C, must get it from their diet, and so are subject to scurvy (vitamin C synthesis is also broken in guinea pigs, but in a different way). In all primates, the remains of the GULO gene and the other three genes that are used in other mammals to synthesise Vitamin C are still present in the genome. It is absolutely clear that GULO was broken by a mutation in the gene in a common ancestor of all primates including man, about 25 million years ago. It doesn’t make sense to think that humans are genetically unrelated to other animals. Ancestral classical pseudogenes, such as GULO, ancestral processed pseudogenes and ancestral retrotransposons, the shared detritus of the primate genome, demonstrate the common ancestry of humans and other primates.

Nishikimi, Fukuyama, et al. (1994) “Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man.” Journal of Biological Chemistry 269: 13685-13688

Inai, Ohto and Nishikimi, “The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene”, J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 49(5): 315-319

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

hecd2:

The very fact that you need unconventional language to describe your belief, is a strong hint that it is unconventional.

This is a silly argument. We are discussing the DNA of Jesus in this thread! Show me any “conventional” source that ever discussed the DNA of Jesus before 1950. Must I conclude that Jesus cannot have DNA just because the word “DNA” was never used by the Church Fathers?

Of course not. Jesus, like all other living things on earth, is DNA based. Discussions of the DNA of Jesus are speculative because scripture is silent on the matter, and anything at all that we say about it is unconventional.

You believe that the Garden of Eden existed physically in a parallel universe. The term ‘parallel universe’ is not scriptural and has in fact existed only for about 25 years. Conventional theology places the Garden of Eden on this earth, in this universe according to the arguments which you have conveniently deleted. You are yet produce any evidence that any Christian authority places the Garden of Eden in a parallel universe, another space-time metric or anywhere other than on this physical earth in this universe, or that Genesis 1 describes anything other than the creation of this universe. You claimed that Genesis 1:1 ‘In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth’ supports your view until I pointed out that in three other Catholic bible translations the term used is ‘heaven’ (singular). You have quietly dropped that.

When all is said and done, your idea that the pre-lapsarian Garden of Eden was in another universe is unconventional theology.

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

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

Of course mortal bodies have DNA. DNA makes us slaves of nature. I would say that the mortal bodies have DNA because mortal bodies are part of a fallen universe. There is no reason to suppose that Adam and Eve had bodies infected with DNA before they fell, or that we will have DNA after we are resurrected.

Dear Matt,

DNA doesn’t ‘infect’ bodies. DNA is the molecule on which all life on earth is based. It is the fundamental building block of life. There is no life without DNA. It is not an ‘infection’

In the fallen world, this is normally true. But the physics that govern the fallen world are not absolutes,

Fine. You will therefore be able to give us a reference to a well attested observation that the physical properties of the universe, at any place up to or beyond the de Sitter horizon and at any time since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago are different from what they are today.

and these laws of nature are passing away.

And the evidence for that is…???

I read once about a miraculous cure that involved the case of a person born without an optic nerve. After the miracle, the person could see, but the optic nerve was still missing in the person. I believe that this is one of the well documented cases of miracles at Lourdes. Seeing isn’t absolutely dependent on having DNA.

First of all without a respectable reference this story is just a fairy tale; and secondly, not only is seeing dependent on DNA, living is dependent on DNA.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[RMP]

I used the term ‘suggest’ because I am a cautious scientist. However, in scientific terms, there is no doubt whatsoever that humans and chimps had a common ancestor around 5 million years ago.

Of course there is doubt…That is why you cannot say it as a fact. I appreciate your honesty, but by the very facts you have so valuably added to this conversation, they only prove we have a SIMILAR species living in our midst, NOT a common ancestor.

Perhaps you would like to explain the fact that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that are still separate in other great apes. For more, see here:

Try to reread the very first line of that theory, It says it is a hypothesis with strong evidence only, not a fact. It says humans are the exception to the rule.

I will place my trust is a crazy prophet who claimed to be the son of GOD because he has never been proven WRONG, before I will believe a crazy scientist who claims we are the son of apes because he has never been proven RIGHT.
I still believe in the evolution of science. Just not the evolution of GOD.

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

Of course there is doubt…That is why you cannot say it as a fact. I appreciate your honesty, but by the very facts you have so valuably added to this conversation, they only prove we have a SIMILAR species living in our midst, NOT a common ancestor.

On the contrary, fusion of chromosome 2, common ancestral pseudogenes, common ancestral interspersed repeats, massive synteny, common ancestral Y-chromosome palindromes, identical drift in neutral non-coding regions and coding four-fold degenerate sites leave no doubt about the common ancestry of human and chimp. In science, this is not an open question, it is a settled fact. The only logical conclusions that one can draw from the evidence is that we had a common ancestor.

Try to reread the very first line of that theory, It says it is a hypothesis with strong evidence only, not a fact. It says humans are the exception to the rule.

Re-read it? I wrote it so I know exactly what it says. Read the conclusion that I draw in the last sentence: ‘The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor’s chromosomes is overwhelming’

I note that you don’t post any alternative explanations for this or for the GULO pseudogene. In fact you ignore the content of the evidence altogether. If you want to ignore the science in favour of your beliefs, that’s fine, but don’t pretend that the science is more tentative than it is.

I will place my trust is a crazy prophet who claimed to be the son of GOD because he has never been proven WRONG, before I will believe a crazy scientist who claims we are the son of apes because he has never been proven RIGHT.
I still believe in the evolution of science. Just not the evolution of GOD.

Fine. You are free to believe whatever you like. Ad hominem noted.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ISABUS]

RMP:

I will place my trust is a crazy prophet who claimed to be the son of GOD because he has never been proven WRONG, before I will believe a crazy scientist who claims we are the son of apes because he has never been proven RIGHT.
I still believe in the evolution of science. Just not the evolution of GOD.

I’ve been on retreat. Thank heaven’s after having read some of these threads! Some of which I won’t even waste my time or effort replying too.

Would it be too much to ask of any intelligent, caring human being to please refrain in the future from calling people names or poking fun at another individual? (RMP, I’m not referring to only you. There are other people who know what I mean and who they are.)

RMP, I think you were upset when you accidently implied Jesus is crazy. I know in my heart you love Jesus as do I. However, it is horribly cruel to call any person crazy. There is nothing decent, kind, or loving about being mean to people and hurting there feelings. Besides, it’s Sunday, THE LORD’s DAY. Let’s show respect for those spiritual beings who are forever present with us. AMEN. Forgive me if I have trespassed on any one person’s heart here. Take it up with God for God made me do it!

Continue on…

 

[Matt16_18]

Hecd2:

You believe that the Garden of Eden existed physically in a parallel universe. The term ‘parallel universe’ is not scriptural and has in fact existed only for about 25 years.

I believe that you were the first person in this thread to use the term “parallel universe”. I have no problem with using that term, because it describes well enough the point I wanted to make.

Conventional theology places the Garden of Eden on this earth, in this universe according to the arguments which you have conveniently deleted. You are yet produce any evidence that any Christian authority places the Garden of Eden in a parallel universe, another space-time metric or anywhere other than on this physical earth in this universe …

I gave you a quote from St. Hildegarde that contradicts what you are saying. While St. Hildegarde does not explicitly use the term “parallel universe”, her description of paradise as it now exists can be described as a type of “parallel universe”. I also gave you the title of the book where I found St. Hildegarde’s quote. If you would read that book, you would find references to other saints that spoke in the same manner as St. Hildegarde. I consider these saints to be authorities.

You claimed that Genesis 1:1 ‘In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth’ supports your view until I pointed out that in three other Catholic bible translations the term used is ‘heaven’ (singular). You have quietly dropped that.

It is all quite irrelevant whether or not heaven should be translated as singular or plural. The universe that is described as being created in Genesis is the universe that contains paradise. Genesis chapter 3 ends with Adam and Eve being expelled from paradise, not with paradise being destroyed. There are numerous paintings by Catholics that show the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise. Can you show me even one painting by a Catholic artist that is over two hundred years old that show paradise being destroyed by the Fall?

When all is said and done, your idea that the pre-lapsarian Garden of Eden was in another universe is unconventional theology.

St. Hildegarde, St. Colette, St. Lydwine, and Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich all spoke about the continued existence of paradise, and not one of them saw paradise as a place on this earth.

DNA doesn’t ‘infect’ bodies. DNA is the molecule on which all life on earth is based. It is the fundamental building block of life. There is no life without DNA. It is not an ‘infection’

If you were Adam and Eve, you might think otherwise. They once had immortal bodies, and because of sin, they ended up with mortal bodies containing DNA, a chemical that, given enough time, brings death to all living things.

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

First of all without a respectable reference this story is just a fairy tale; and secondly, not only is seeing dependent on DNA, living is dependent on DNA.

At the great shrine of Lourdes there have been reported thousands of cures. But in over a century the Church has checked and approved only a little over 60 alleged cures. And there must be no chance of suggestion. For example, in 1908,
Madam Biré was blind, atrophy of the papilla (optic nerve withered where it came into the back of the eye - can be seen with an ophthalmoscope). They took her to Lourdes. When the Blessed Sacrament procession passed by, she said she was cured and could see. They took her straight-away to the medical bureau there, the records of which can be checked by doctors. The Doctors looked into her eye with the ophthalmoscope, found the nerve still withered. Yet she could read a newspaper.

cin.org/archives/cinbibl/200007/0007.html.

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

I gave you a quote from St. Hildegarde that contradicts what you are saying. While St. Hildegarde does not explicitly use the term “parallel universe”, her description of paradise as it now exists can be described as a type of “parallel universe”. I also gave you the title of the book where I found St. Hildegarde’s quote. If you would read that book, you would find references to other saints that spoke in the same manner as St. Hildegarde. I consider these saints to be authorities.

Good for you. Most Catholics do not regard the writings of mystics as authoritative. In any case, the point at issue is not the continued existence of the Garden of Eden, but its pre-Fall location, which according to the real authorities of the church, the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, the dogma as promulgated by papal bulls and decrees, and the Catechism, is here on this earth in this universe.

If you were Adam and Eve, you might think otherwise. They once had immortal bodies, and because of sin, they ended up with mortal bodies containing DNA, a chemical that, given enough time, brings death to all living things.

First of all, there was no literal Adam and Eve, the parents of all mankind (a fact that is overwhelmingly supported by evidence from the analysis of polymorphisms in the human genome and related species); and, critically, second, DNA is not a chemcal that ‘brings death’ (I would be fascinated by your analysis that explains exactly how DNA ‘brings death’) but is the basis for life. No DNA, no life. The bottom line is, we have no independently living organisms on earth that do not rely on DNA. DNA is the basis of all life on earth from the simplest most primitive Archaea to the most complex derived being. I 'm sorry that facts seem to get in the way of your theology, but they do have that inconvenient property.

You do seem to state your personal theological speculations rather dogmatically - speculations that not only go way beyond conventional theology but also run counter to science.

Now tell us exactly how DNA brings death physiologically and how an absence of DNA avoids death in physical living things.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[RMP]

If you will notice I did not mention any specific names. You filled in the blanks with your own beliefs. That was my point. Both sides of this issue view the other as crazy. But, I apologize anyways, Please read it without the word “crazy.”
Forgive me.
I was not upset, just provoking our thoughts.
I admit, Im not the brightest mind here, far from it. But, I am trying to absorb and learn from some of your thoughts. I will make another attempt at your hypothesis.
I believe Jesus Christ was the son of GOD
I believe GOD created man
GOD does not have to prove himself. He already did that. He did it simply by himself.
Science did not have to prove this too me.
How can science unprove what is true.

Now back to DNA.

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

At the great shrine of Lourdes there have been reported thousands of cures. But in over a century the Church has checked and approved only a little over 60 alleged cures. And there must be no chance of suggestion. For example, in 1908,

Madam Biré was blind, atrophy of the papilla (optic nerve withered where it came into the back of the eye - can be seen with an ophthalmoscope). They took her to Lourdes. When the Blessed Sacrament procession passed by, she said she was cured and could see. They took her straight-away to the medical bureau there, the records of which can be checked by doctors. The Doctors looked into her eye with the ophthalmoscope, found the nerve still withered. Yet she could read a newspaper.

cin.org/archives/cinbibl/200007/0007.html
.

Is this the best evidence you can produce? I asked you for a respectable reference and you give me a link to another web-list where someone else makes an entirely unsupported assertion about what an unnamed doctor thought. This remains quite firmly in the realm of unsupported anecdote - in effect fairy tale and myth. You will excuse me if I do not fall over myself to agree with your assertion that some part of natural life does not rely on DNA. The fact is that the entire human genome is present in every single one of the 50 trillion cells that make up the adult human body.

If you can produce properly attested evidence to the contrary, say in Nature, Science, Genome, Proc Nat Acad Sci, Proc Roy Soc, then that will be telling. So far all we have is hearsay.

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

 

[RMP]

In your conclusion you say a fusion had to of taken place for the 2 chimp threads to become a human thread. Give one example where this (fusion) has taken place in the science world at all. Making one species turn into another NEW species.

 

[ISABUS]

RMP:

But, I apologize anyways, Please read it without the word “crazy.”
Forgive me.

I admit, Im not the brightest mind here, far from it. But, I am trying to absorb and learn from some of your thoughts.

I believe Jesus Christ was the son of GOD

GOD does not have to prove himself. He already did that. He did it simply by himself.

Now back to DNA.

RMP, I think you are one of the most brilliant men in cyberworld next to our in-house physicist Alec. Why? Well, I suspect you both have a heart the size of a giant and a mind big enough to grow in knowledge which enables one to ask another human being for ‘forgiveness’ when the occassion arises.

The most important thing that I’ve learned in my life is that God doesn’t really care at all about how smart we are since God loves how we show each other compassion. Foremost, it is our innocense God is drawn to above all else. Thank you ~ continue on…

 

[Charity]

ISABUS:

RMP, I think you are one of the most brilliant men in cyberworld next to our in-house physicist Alec. Why? Well, I suspect you both have a heart the size of a giant …

Dear ISABUS and RMP,

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/post_old.gif Today, 04:17 PM
hecd2
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2004
Posts: 266

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocaliCatholic
Alec,…What parts of the Christian faith do you agree with, if any, and why?

Dear Socali,
… As a lapsed Catholic

, I have a great affection for the Church and for the good work she does throughout the world.

But as an agnostic, I oppose authoritarianism (any attempt to direct me to what I can and cannot hold as natural truth is anathema to me - I will not accede to beliefs that run counter to the plain evidence of my senses or my reason), …

I* regard the existence of a God as unlikely*, and the whole supernatural domain of heaven, hell, angels, miracles and other phenomena, …, as doubtful.

Alec

… Just found this post over on the Creation vs. Evolution thread.

I felt very sad to hear that Alec is not sure that his God lives. Would you like to join me in offering up some prayers for him and all who may struggle with a weak faith…

“Lord I believe, help my unbelief!” Mark 9:24

I am glad you are both hanging in here on this DNA thread. Thanks for the encouragement and prayers, too.

“Our God reigns!”,
Charity

 

[ISABUS]

Within a fifty mile radius of my home there are 56 cultures living together in peace and harmony. I am in the meca of what is known as the “global” community of planet Earth. Many of my dearest of friends don’t believe in God. Their endless compassion and kindness towards people has taught me to be a thoughtful, non-judgemental Christian. This is why I wouldn’t dream of preaching to anyone that my religion is superior to their faith or belief.

As far as Alec goes, he is very Christ-like in my mind. It’s not important to me if he believes in God for I know in my heart God loves Alec. So either way, Alec has his bases covered!

I pray for peace in the world. I trust in God to guide me on “my” journey so the light of LOVE will continue to shine on me and within me. May the light of LOVE shine on all present here. ~ :yup:

 

[Charity]

hecd2:

Dear Charity,…Whatever speculation we choose for the means by which Jesus derived His Y-chromosome it cannot be only through Mary, if Mary was a normal woman.

Dear Alec,
Mary was not a normal woman! She was the Immaculate Conception! She was the MOTHER of GOD! She had no original sin and didn’t sin once her whole life!

She carried the embryonic Jesus in her placenta, birthed Him in the fullness of gestation, and lactated the nourishing breast milk for the suckling Infant Savior of the world!

Then she carried Jesus’ Divine fetal cells that migrated into her body organs during pregnancy, for the remainder of her life…see mom keeps fetal cells or moms keep fetal mementos. No wonder her body was physically taken up at the Assumption-- she might still now have Jesus’ DNA/cells in *her *body in heaven!

I have a hard time imagining that Mary’s uniqueness lay ONLY in her soul, with no counterpart in her flesh DNA. Mary is the “new Eve”… Could she have the same original genotype of Eve (? Through Adam), the reconstructed original man genetics, not the BC\AD time DNA?

Maybe the original Eve female genome already possessed an analogue of the Y-chromosome, or maybe a fusion of the X & Y, or maybe a pristine (unmutated) arrangement?

hecd2:

If Mary were a mosaic as you describe above, her original zygote would have been male or a Klinefelter male before the non-disjuction mutation. If one lineage of her cells, those retaining the y-chromosomes formed her reproductive organs, then the presence of the Y-chromosome would cause her to develop testes and sperm.

What about Y-inactivation? What if Joachim were Klinefelter , but not sterile…What if Anne had a rearrangement?

hecd2:

If she also developed ovaries and a womb, as she must have done to bear Jesus, her ova would not contain Y-chromosomes.

See XX\XY female. Her somatic cells could be the Y-source.

Jesus’ humanity was drawn solely through the Virgin Mary.

Thanks,

Charity