Jesus DNA?

[hecd2]

marciadietrich:

Actually it would be easy to have only DNA from his mother, as a male configuration is XY instead of XX … so Jesus could have had all Mary’s DNA minus the arm of one X chromosome and be male.

Eve came from the side/rib of Adam, which seems potentially like Eve was a female version clone of Adam (or perhaps part Adam, part what God might have changed or added) … so why not potentially Jesus a male version clone of Mary?

Possible Jesus was half Mary (egg only) and half created by God providing a sperm or the other half of dna in some way, but I have not heard it said that Jesus received his humanity from any other source but Mary. That she is the one and only direct connection to humanity for Christ’s humanity.

Dear Marcia,

It’s a liitle more complicated than this. First of all, a Y-chromosome is not an X-chromosome with a missing ‘arm’. (It seems you might think X and Y describe the’shape’ of the chromosomes - in fact X is shaped as a straight bar and Y is so short it appears almost like a dot; X and Y are just names - the sex-linked chromosomes in birds are named Z and W. The X-chromosome contains many genes in both arms that are essential for viability and that are not found on the Y-chromosome. The Y-chromosome, in turn, contains some male-linked unique genes not present on the X-chromosome many of which are essential for male sex determination. You need to have at least one X-chromosome to be alive, and you need to have a Y-chromosome to be male. The vast majority of women have two X-chromosomes and studies have shown that one X-chromosome is silenced early in development so that only one X-chromosome actually expresses protein. Now, it’s difficult to say what a human with one and a half X-chromosomes would be like - it’s possible that she could be normal (relying on her one whole X-chromosome), but it is also possible that she would not be viable. One thing that is not possible, in the absence of the sex-determining genes of the Y-chromosome is that she could be male.

Let’s look at the clone hypothesis now: well, cloning somatic cells in mammals always leads to a genetically identical copy of the original cell, including sex determination (the technique is called ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’). If the original being, in this case the Blessed Virgin, is a woman, she has two X-chromosomes and so will her clone: it is not possible to create a Y chromosome from one of the X’s. So Jesus could not be a clone of Mary.

How about the idea that Mary provided an egg, which as all mammalian germ-line cells, is haploid, that is, containing one copy only of each chromosome? In order to fertilise that egg, normally a sperm is needed, also carrying one copy of each chromosome. Since somatic cells that form a mammalian body are diploid (contain two copies of each autosomal chromosome) and are highly intolerant of missing chromosomes, we need another haploid cell to fuse with Mary’s egg, and moreover, since Jesus was male that second germ-line cell must contain a Y-chromosome (since females entirely lack Y-chromosomes in any cell of their body). Female egg cells never contain Y-chromosomes; only male sperm contain Y-chromosomes (or rather, roughly half the sperm contain Y-chromosomes and the other half contain X-chromosomes - whether a baby is male or female depends on whether it as an X or Y containing sperm that fertilises the egg). So we are left with only two possibilities that I can see. Either Jesus is the result of the fertilisation of Mary’s egg by a male sperm or a miracle occurred and God caused Mary’s egg to be fertilised miraculously. In any case, we have to account for the appearance of a Y-chromosome in Jesus’s genetic makeup that is simply not present in Mary’s cells.

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

 

[Strider]

marciadietrich:

Strider:

Sorry, Marci,
There is entirely different information on the X and Y chromsosomes,

Hello Strider

You are thinking of the X from the mother and the Y from the father having differing information … that doesn’t really matter to this.

A female, like Mary, has an X from the mother and an X from the father each with differing information for the formation of the person. The extra information on that arm of that X from the father (which makes a girl instead of a boy) is excess information not needed - obviously so or men couldn’t be born for not having it. So that X from the father with some extra information. I believe it is duplicate information from another part of the X and that additional arm often protects women from genetic problems which men succomb to, Fragile X for example. Mother a carrier and her son can get it because he doesn’t have that duplicate gene from the extra arm to protect him. Or in the case of autism boys 4X more likely to be autistic then girls, so there is believed to be a genetic basis to autism as well (but over many genes or combinations of genes, not straight as inheritence as fragile x).

So Mary has an X from her mom and an X from her dad in her genetics. The X from her dad has all the information needed in the Y configuration part, plus an extra arm of duplicate info which completes the X. The duplicate information could be taken away without any problem.

Unless you’re a professional scientist and tell me how an X and Y from the father vary somehow (edit: outside of the obvious X versus Y - lol - i.e. what difference would make that deletion impossible)

, that is my understanding of the matter.Marci,
The X and Y chromosomes have completely different genes on them. The Y chromosome ONLY confers maleness; the absence of a Y chromosome will produce a XX female (under normal conditons.)
The X chromosome is very complex and carries many genes not related to sex (such as male-pattern baldness - inconsequential, and blood-platelet formation - consequential = hemophelia) All females are X chimeras, carrying X chromosomes from both mom and dad and so are protected form many X-chromosome recessive diseases… Males receive the X only from mom and so are susceptible to these X-related problems.
I have a bachelor’s degree in zoology, a masters degree in the
teaching of biology and post-grad credits in human genetics and bioethics. I’m not a doctor, but I taught this topic in high school for years.
Oh, by the way, each X chromosome has different FORMS of the SAME information.
The above is why I wrote in my first post Jesus’ DNA would have half its origin in Mary and half in the Holy Spirit.
I am NOT suggesting anything untoward, here. I’m just saying the H.S. must’ve miraculously done this.
I hope this helps. You can return the favor. I’ve been on this board for months and haven’t been able to figure it out…what does lol stand for?

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

So we are left with only two possibilities that I can see. Either Jesus is the result of the fertilisation of Mary’s egg by a male sperm or a miracle occurred and God caused Mary’s egg to be fertilised miraculously. In any case, we have to account for the appearance of a Y-chromosome in Jesus’s genetic makeup that is simply not present in Mary’s cells.

Alec

We could also assume that God created the “seed” (a zygote) ex nihilo and placed it in the womb of Mary. But I see no reason to assume that God did such a thing. Jesus is the New Adam, and Adam’s body was not created ex nihilo. Adam’s body was formed from the material that God had already created. That is why I don’t have a problem with God miraculously taking human DNA that was already in existance and using that DNA to form the DNA of Jesus.

The Gospel accounts give two genealogies for Jesus, one tracing Mary’s ancestors, and one tracing Joseph’s ancestors. These two genealogies intersect at various places; for example, both Mary and Joseph are ancestors of David. Since both Mary and Joseph received their DNA from Adam and Eve, and since both Mary and Joseph are also descendents of David, we can say that Jesus shared DNA with both Mary and Joseph. And since we are all ancestors of Adam and Eve, we also share DNA with Jesus, since Adam and Eve are the source of all human DNA.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

marciadietrich:

Actually it would be easy to have only DNA from his mother, as a male configuration is XY instead of XX … so Jesus could have had all Mary’s DNA minus the arm of one X chromosome and be male.

Not ture, a single X would be female. It is the Y that makes a male.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Am not a real doctor unless global experience with beer tasting counts, but with all the excellent scientific explanations given here it occurs to me that we are focusing on what is possible in nature. Unless one is willing to take a step as some do, like the Mormons, and say that God physically forced himself on Mary, then we are left with something super natural occurring and must depart from natural science in attempting to explain it.

There are only two choices; either all the “human” material, which creates the humanity of Our Lord, came from Mary or some of it came from someplace else. Unless you want another heresy, that someplace else of necessity is supernatural. So if we go that route, then we cannot say that Jesus was 100% human. It would make Him, at least His body more than human. As others point out, this position was a very early heresy in the Church.

Clearly since we can already clone animals today, we must concede the ability of God to form a human in the womb of Mary from her own flesh. And completely from her own flesh. IMO to do otherwise would be, as many have already suggested, saying that the Jesus’ humanity was more than human.

 

[hecd2]

We could also assume that God created the “seed” (a zygote) ex nihilo and placed it in the womb of Mary.

We could!

But I see no reason to assume that God did such a thing.

Well reason doesn’t enter into miraculous intervention, does it? Once you’ve decided that the normal laws of nature are suspended for a miracle, all things are possible and I would say, all things are equally probable - there is no way I know of rationally distinguishing between the probability of any two putative miraculous acts.

Jesus is the New Adam, and Adam’s body was not created ex nihilo. Adam’s body was formed from the material that God had already created. That is why I don’t have a problem with God miraculously taking human DNA that was already in existance and using that DNA to form the DNA of Jesus.

The Gospel accounts give two genealogies for Jesus, one tracing Mary’s ancestors, and one tracing Joseph’s ancestors. These two genealogies intersect at various places; for example, both Mary and Joseph are ancestors of David. Since both Mary and Joseph received their DNA from Adam and Eve, and since both Mary and Joseph are also descendents of David, we can say that Jesus shared DNA with both Mary and Joseph. And since we are all ancestors of Adam and Eve, we also share DNA with Jesus, since Adam and Eve are the source of all human DNA.

There are many miracles required to make all this hang together. First, as has been pointed out on several threads on this list, from a scientific viewpoint, there are no two individuals from whom humans take their sole ancestry. Second, it is possible for someone to be a descendant of someone else separated by as few as five or six generations and inherit no DNA directly. Third, you say that by assuming only direct descent through Mary, but the common possession of genetic maetrial between Mary and Joseph owing to common ancestry, we can say that Jesus shared genetic material with Joseph. But that is a trivial observation, since a) the key thing, in a natural scenario, is that Joseph needs to share is his Y-chromosome and that’s the one thing that cannot be shared unless his sperm is present in Mary’s womb and b) we all share DNA sequences owing to common ancestry - that is what being a single monophyletic species of unusually narrow divergence means. Fourth, your claim about sharing DNA with Jesus, really amounts to no more than a clim that we are of the same species as He was.

By the way, it’s a small thing, but you use ‘ancestor’ when I think you mean ‘descendant’ at least twice. I do that too

Given all this, I return to my previous conclusion - either Jesus is the natural son of Mary and Joseph, or God performed a miracle. If you accept the latter, I know of no way of determining what that miracle was - it could be miraculous fertilisation of one of Mary’s eggs, it could be the miraculous planting of a zygote or a blastula in Mary’s womb or who knows what other supernatural act? But somehow, a Y-chromosome needed to get into Mary’s uterus.

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

 

[mrS4ntA]

hecd2:

…
There are many miracles required to make all this hang together. First, as has been pointed out on several threads on this list, from a scientific viewpoint, there are no two individuals from whom humans take their sole ancestry.
…

Actually, if you look at the mytochondriae in your cells’ nuclei, you can trace it somewhat (in theory).

Mytochondria is a curious cellular enzyme (is it one?) that has its own set of DNA (completely different than ours, not used to build our genetic information, but exclusively to build a mytochondria’s DNA). It’s like an integrated parasite in us that we cannot do without!

Anyway, since this mytochondria’s DNA is not for us, it’s not inherited by the mixing of our parents’ DNAs. (The chromosomes in the sperm and the egg are split from the chromosomes in the cells’ nuclei’ centers. mythochondria has got its own chromosome and DNA.)

The curious thing is that our mytochondrial DNA is inherited *entirely *from our mothers. Your mytochondrial DNA is an exact duplicate of your mother’s. Trace this far enough, you will have ONE single woman whence it is all derived. The scientific community calls her the “Mytochondrial Eve.” Is it the same Eve? many says no. They say that this “Eve” lived amongst 20,000 other individuals, but only Eve’s mytochondria got passed down in an unbroken lines of daughters. Maybe that’s when the mytochondria decided we are a friendly host. :tiphat:

The point is, all living (and dead) persons on earth today can trace his common maternal ancestry to ONE woman … already! And the scientific community proved that! So, even if this Mytochondrial Eve still too modern to be Adam’s Eve, there’s no impossibility in two Original Parents! The human population during Eve’s time was infitesimally small: 20,000! how much further must you go before you get our Original Adam and Eve?

 

[hecd2]

DrBubbaLove:

Clearly since we can already clone animals today, we must concede the ability of God to form a human in the womb of Mary from her own flesh. And completely from her own flesh. IMO to do otherwise would be, as many have already suggested, saying that the Jesus’ humanity was more than human.

The fly in the ointment is that a natural clone of Mary would be a female, genetically identical to Mary. Mary had no Y-chromosomes, so we need some source of these, either natural or supernatural.

One natural possibility that has just occurred to me ( and I hesitate to say this because it can be interpreted as some sort of blasphemy, but I am just advancing natural hypotheses in support of those who insist Jesus took all his human nature from Mary without supernatural intervention) is that Mary was was a chimaeric hermaphrodite. A chimaera is an individual that has cells that derive ultimately from two fertilised zygotes that subsequently fused. The process starts with two zygotes in the uterus that normally would develop into two separate creatures, two people, in humans, twins. Very early on, before cell differentiation, the embryos fuse and a single being is born with some cells genetically from one individual and some cells from another - does this being have two souls? - that is a conundrum for theologians. If the two zygotes are different sexes, the single being can be a hermaphrodite, a person that has both male and female anatomical and physiological characteristics. Some cells in the chimaeric hermaphrodite are male and some are female. If the outward appearance is dominated by female cells then a chimaeric hermaphrodite might appear to be a normal woman - in fact she might not herself suspect any different - but lurking within her body would be male cells with a Y-chromosome. Then she could clone a male or even produce eggs with Y-chromosomes! A true chimaeric hermaphrodite could be fertile in both male and female capcities - could, indeed, fertilise herself…

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

 

[marciadietrich]

Strider:

I am NOT suggesting anything untoward, here. I’m just saying the H.S. must’ve miraculously done this.

Hi again Strider,

Thanks, I also looked it up after I got done here. I was under the misimpression that the mere presence of X or Y formation caused the variation in development… that basically there were equivilent genes on both that would be acted on depending on if the Y or extra X was there. Been too long since I learned this.

I hope this helps. You can return the favor. I’ve been on this board for months and haven’t been able to figure it out…what does lol stand for?

lol = laugh out loud … basically if something is funny or I use it when I realize I’ve made a big mistake. So lol on my mistake.

Thanks

Marcia

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Dear Marcia,

The vast majority of women have two X-chromosomes and studies have shown that one X-chromosome is silenced early in development so that only one X-chromosome actually expresses protein. Now, it’s difficult to say what a human with one and a half X-chromosomes would be like - it’s possible that she could be normal (relying on her one whole X-chromosome), but it is also possible that she would not be viable.

And in thinking about this, a woman with one and a half X-chromosomes would not be viable since the silencing of one copy of X in women is random ,so women are genuine chimearas in X - some of their cells express protein from one of their X’s and some express protein from the other. In a woman with one and a half X-chromosomes, half her cells would lack viability. I don’t think she would be viable as an organism.

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

 

[marciadietrich]

hecd2:

So we are left with only two possibilities that I can see. Either Jesus is the result of the fertilisation of Mary’s egg by a male sperm or a miracle occurred and God caused Mary’s egg to be fertilised miraculously. In any case, we have to account for the appearance of a Y-chromosome in Jesus’s genetic makeup that is simply not present in Mary’s cells.

Hello Alec

Thanks for the detailed explanation on the genetics.

Perhaps my hang up is on how we take this which is supposed to be de fide according to Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary.

Mary is never spoken of as half or part of Jesus’ flesh or humanity, with God filling the gap. She is the only source mentioned. However that was done is miraculous and accomplished in the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure how to explain it, but saying God made a sperm and fertilized an egg - even if Mary is a virgin - still seems to be sexual reproduction giving Jesus an earthly father of some sort.

Marcia

 

[Charity]

To All,

I have been pondering the Christological genetics for some time. Ever since studying the Theology of the Body, I have prayed for some serious discussion partners on the topic of what JPII calls “original man”, i.e. man fresh from the Creation prior to Original Sin. I didn’t get “past first base” with the gifted Catholic thinkers in my social circle when I broached my "Original Man: DNA of Jesus " questions. Needless to say, I am now excited to discover all of you: the scientfific cache of “inquiring minds” on this forum.

Here is my “two box” approach to the religion/science interface:

Box #1. Human Knowledge: Routine rigorous scientific method and mainstream peer-reviewed literature.

Box #2. Faith: Belief in The Christian God and the infallibility of the Dogmas ot the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

So when I am personally perplexed about some difficulty, I start FIRST with #2 and see what the Church teaches as definitive. Then with an OPEN MIND I go “outside of the box”, and marshal up IMAGINATION and CREATIVITY and EDUCATED GUESSES to brainstorm NEW hypotheses from a unique nuanced perspective which also correspond to the Church’s teaching. Next, I move to #1 and examine the evidence proving or disproving these hypotheses.

Here’s why:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

158 "Faith seeks understanding":33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed…

159 There can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, …** can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God****.** the humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

---

That being said, let’s move onto what the Church authoritatively teaches about the persons of Adam, Christ, Eve, and Mary in the next post…

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

There are many miracles required to make all this hang together. First, as has been pointed out on several threads on this list, from a scientific viewpoint, there are no two individuals from whom humans take their sole ancestry.

It is a de fide belief of Catholicism that all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve. One cannot be a faithful Catholic and doubt that this is true. (And there is no scientific evidence that this is not true).

… your claim about sharing DNA with Jesus, really amounts to no more than a claim that we are of the same species as He was.

It is also a de fide belief that Jesus is a true man. It seems to me, that this belief would mean that Jesus had human DNA that came from Adam and Eve. Paul builds his theology of justification on the fact that Jesus is a descendant of Adam. If we "mythologize’ Adam and Eve, we also turn original sin into a myth. If original sin is a myth, then there wasn’t much point in Jesus dying on the Cross. … Catholic doctrine is a tightly woven tapestry. If one tries to remove one thread from the tapestry, the whole tapestry begins to unravel.

… somehow, a Y-chromosome needed to get into Mary’s uterus …

Right. I see no reason to assume that God created a Y-chromosome from pieces of DNA taken from Mary’s chromosomes. If God was going to do that, he might just as well have created an entire zygote ex nihilio in Mary’s womb. Since Adam is a type that foreshadows the antitype of Jesus, I would say that typology would argue against the ex nihilio speculation, since Adam’s body was not created ex nihilio, but was created out of already existing material. Which leads this faithful Catholic to conclude that as a minimum, I can say that Jesus received his DNA from Adam and Eve. (Even if Jesus received all his DNA from Mary, this would still be true, since Mary received all her DNA from Adam and Eve.)

 

[Matt16_18]

Charity:

To All,

I have been pondering the Christological genetics for some time. Ever since studying the Theology of the Body, I have prayed for some serious discussion partners on the topic of what JPII calls “original man”, i.e. man fresh from the Creation prior to Original Sin.

I think it is wrong to assume that Adam had DNA as we know it before the Fall. Adam had an immortal body before the Fall; a body entirely different than the mortal body that he received as a consequence of his disobedience. Adam’s mortal body was subject to the laws of nature of a world that became corrupted by Adam’s sin. The physical laws of Paradise cannot be the same as the physical laws of the world where the fallen human race now dwells, since there was no death, disease or decay in Paradise. It is the fallen world that is subject to death, disease, and decay, and decay is built right into the physical laws that govern the fallen world (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics).

This world is passing away, and it is a mistake to think that the physical laws of this world are absolutes that are not also passing away.

 

[Charity]

The Virgin Mary did not conceive Jesus through sexual intercourse, so strike that theory from the list:

CCC485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son.122 The Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the giver of Life”, is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

Mary’s divine motherhood
CCC495 Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”.144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).145

Mary’s virginity
CCC496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”.146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147

497 The Gospel accounts understand the** virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148** “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfilment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.

---

Does “conceived… without human seed” in CCC496 also mean without Mary’s egg, or does it refer just to male sperm?

More later… on Mary’s Immaculate Conception as predestination, free from original sin, like Eve.

 

[marciadietrich]

Matt16_18:

It is a de fide belief of Catholicism that all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve. One cannot be a faithful Catholic and doubt that this is true. (And there is no scientific evidence that this is not true).

It is also a de fide belief that Jesus is a true man. It seems to me, that this belief would mean that Jesus had human DNA that came from Adam and Eve. …

Right. I see no reason to assume that God created a Y-chromosome from pieces of DNA taken from Mary’s chromosomes. If God was going to do that, he might just as well have created an entire zygote ex nihilio in Mary’s womb. Since Adam is a type that foreshadows the antitype of Jesus, I would say that typology would argue against the ex nihilio speculation, since Adam’s body was not created ex nihilio, but was created out of already existing material. Which leads this faithful Catholic to conclude that as a minimum, I can say that Jesus received his DNA from Adam and Eve. (Even if Jesus received all his DNA from Mary, this would still be true, since Mary received all her DNA from Adam and Eve.)

This is from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma listed as de fide:

Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary.

Mary would seem to be the only named source of Christ’s humanity. There is no mention, that I can see, in any ECF or other theologian - or anyone not blatantly heretical about Jesus’ nature - prior to understanding reproduction and genetics that speculates that Jesus’ flesh had any other source but Mary’s flesh Or her pure blood - “potential flesh” - in the case of Aquinis and his hang up was that Christ’s flesh shouldn’t come from her reproductive potential. So that Mary is the source of Jesus’ flesh - that Christ was generated from her - seems as de fide as the beliefs on all humans descending from Adam and Eve and that Jesus was true man.

I am trying to see what the Church teaches and go from there. But I am getting the feeling that even the clearest of statements are only absolute until someone decides 'it really doesn’t mean what it plainly says’ … not you, but I was surprised someone found the idea of all of Christ’s flesh coming from Mary being heretical when it looks to me like it is de fide. I am confused at how everything seems subject to revision or just being lost in a corner as it becomes difficult to resolve.

Marcia

 

[mrS4ntA]

marciadietrich:

…
but I was surprised someone found the idea of all of Christ’s flesh coming from Mary being heretical when it looks to me like it is de fide. I am confused at how everything seems subject to revision or just being lost in a corner as it becomes difficult to resolve.

Marcia

Ever heard of the brand new (well, 500 years old really, but relatively new) heresy called Sola Scriptura? It allows you to interpret the Scripture in any way you like. So don’t be surprised with the multitude of mini-heresies, new heresies and ancient heresies surfacing/resurfacing here and there

Anyway, M Gibson got it right when he portrayed Mary at the foot of the Cross lamenting, “… flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood.” :crying:

Jesus, You are Son of God and Son of Mary…
Lord, have mercy.

 

[BayCityRickL]

this is a frivilous question and misuse of the forums.

 

[JPrejean]

this is a frivilous question and misuse of the forums.

Considering it’s an apologetics forum, I don’t think that it is. I have heard this question asked by a number of Protestants in the ordinary course of discussing Catholic beliefs, particularly in the context of the Immaculate Conception. One Protestant response is that Christ was created ex nihilo in the Blessed Mother’s womb, so that Mary did not need to be immaculately conceived in order for Christ’s human nature to be sinless. Because of that objection and the venerable patristic maxim that “what is not assumed is not healed,” I think it is important from a theological standpoint to rule out certain forms of creation as docetistic or gnostic, even though we may never be able to determine what the actual method of creation was. FWIW, my own theory is that it was an actual ovum that was miraculously transformed by the action of the Holy Spirit. ISTM that creation ex nihilo must be absolutely ruled out, since that would break the connection between Christ’s humanity and Adam’s descendants.

 

[Calbreese]

Interestingly, I wrote a short fictional story about Partisans attempting to obtain Jesus’ DNA from the Cross where body fluids and blood may have been. The intention was to clone JC. The ramifications of this story made it quite readable. IHS Daryl