Jesus DNA?

[Matt16_18]

marciadietrich:

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.

Dr. Ott is saying that Mary is a daughter of Adam. Mary received her humanity from Adam, and by saying that Jesus is born of a daughter of Adam, Dr. Ott is asserting that Jesus received his humanity from Adam.

 

[Matt16_18]

Charity:

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

To do proper exegesis of scriptures, one cannot impose anachronistic interpretations upon the scriptures. One must understand what the author of scriptures meant to say when he was writing the scriptures.

When Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, no one had any conception of the woman providing half the DNA of a baby. During the time that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, the understanding was that the male planted his “seed” in the womb. This “seed” of the male was thought to be a complete human being, and human sexual reproduction was thought to be analogous to planting a plant seed in moist fertile ground. The “seed” would gestate under proper conditions, and the woman’s role was to provide a ground for the man’s seed to grow.
Sperm [Greek -spermos, from sperma, *seed.]The woman was necessary for the gestation of the seed, (she was the “fertile ground”), but she did not provide the humanity of the person. That is why Matthew and Luke list Jesus’ genealogy; they wanted to show that he was a true human being that had ancestors. They are affirming that Mary miraculous conceived apart from normal sexual relations, AND that Jesus was a true human being - they are affirming a mystery of the faith, not writing a code that could only be broken by understanding the role of DNA in human conception. The idea that Mary provided the DNA of Jesus is an anachronistic concept that cannot be imposed on the Gospels, IMO. In fact, such an interpretation obscures what Matthew and Luke were intending to show; that Jesus was a true human being that received his humanity from Adam. Matthew and Luke did not doubt that all human beings were descendants of Adam, and they want us to look at Jesus as one of our blood relatives.

 

[mercygate]

The DNA isn’t a question for me. It’s the Y chromosome that puzzles me.

 

[Matt16_18]

The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Gen. 3:20

 

[Strider]

marciadietrich:

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

Marcia,
Thanks. Now I know everything…NOT!

Since this is a big part of my field, I find this thread fascinating and is it something I have thought of before, in the form of, “Wouldn’t it be something to analyze God’s DNA?”
When I was teaching high school and we were discussing an unanswerable question (maybe something about evolution), I would smile and say, “Didn’t God leave us with a wonderful mystery to try to solve?” :whacky: (It was a Catholic school).
That’s the way I look at this thread. Maybe, if I make it, I’ll ask God when I see him.

 

[hecd2]

mrS4ntA:

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?)

Mitochondria are extra-nuclear organelles. They are **not **found in the nucleus of cells and they are certainly **not **enzymes.

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!

Well, I suppose there is a shadow of truth in the ‘integrated parasite’ claim, as Lynn Margulis’s ideas that organelles were originally parasites or symbionts that ended up in an obligate relationship. All eukaryotes (organisms with cells that have true nuclei and this includes all plant, animals, fungi etc) have mitochondria. Mitochondria have the function of converting food in the cell into energy.

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.

Except for those of us with mitochondrial heteroplasmy

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:

Go here for a far more accurate description of the concept:
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

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,

Too modern!!?? Mitochondrial Eve is dated to 175,000 years before today and is not a sole ancestor of humans in her generation. She lived long before the emergence of anatomically and behaviourally modern humans

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?

The problem is that molecular analysis shows that there is no possibility that within the human lineage the population passed through a bottleneck of two individuals since the divergence of human and chimp lineages.

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

 

[hecd2]

marciadietrich:

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

Marcia, I think that once you have accepted the generation of Jesus as a miraculous act, you needn’t struggle too hard to explain how that happened, because isn’t it in the nature of miracles that you can’t explain them? And in a sense, God is responsible for ALL of Jesus’s humanity even that which comes from Mary, no?

Here are the explanations I have come up with so far:

1. Two natural ones:

• Mary was impregnated with a male sperm
• Mary was a chimaeric hermaphrodite and so carried both male and female cells within her

1. A miracle: what say you to a clone, but with the miraculous substitution of one of the X-chromosomes of the zygote by a Y-chromosome? In that case the genetic material on a chromosomal basis would 45/46th from Mary and 1/46th miraculous.

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

 

[hecd2]

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).

Matt, there is extremely strong scientific evidence that there cannot have been two sole ancestors of extant humans in any generation in the last 6 million years. The existence of Adam and Eve as sole ancestors of modern humans is denied by the scientific evidence. This evidence has been aired several times on the forum recently, but can be repeated here if you wish

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.

Nevertheless there cannot have been an Adam and Eve as sole ancestors of humanity, whatever the de fide belief is. So what does that say about the integrity of the tapestry?

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.)

But the point is that Mary, if a normal woman, has no Y-chromosome in any of her somatic or germ-line cells so on her own cannot generate a man because she simply lacks the vital ingredient of a Y-chromoome. That is what the conundrum is all about.

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

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

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.

Matt, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support the rather grotesque assertion that there has ever been a human alive that had no DNA. (In fact DNA is found in every living creature on earth - it is the univesal genetic code: there is no life without DNA). There isn’t even scriptural support for the idea that Adam lacked DNA, since it was not shown to carry the genetic code until the late 1940s, a rather long time after Genesis was written. You could say, with as much reason, that Adam was 136 feet tall and had three heads.

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

 

[hecd2]

marciadietrich:

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

Marcia, this is particularly the issue that we have discussed from the outset. Wherever the Church declares a dogma that touches on the natural world, there is a danger that discoveries about the natural world will create difficult to resolve issues. We have already discussed Adam and Eve. In that case, the teaching of the Church is in clear disagreement with the facts.

In the case of Jesus’s humanity, it’s less clear cut: I have suggested two possible natural causes for the conception of Jesus, one of which would not violate the idea of the Immaculate Conception. Having said that, the whole notion of God taking on human nature requires such powerful miraculous intervention (and indeed the supernatural generation of a diploid zygote from one or two haploid eggs or the cloning of a somatic cell by the intervention of the Holy Spirit is itself a a miraculous event) that the miraculous conversion of one X-chromosome to a Y-chromosome in the zygote seems like straining at a gnat to me. If it is as claimed de fide, then one or several miracles are required anyway.

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

 

[hecd2]

mercygate:

The DNA isn’t a question for me. It’s the Y chromosome that puzzles me.

In what way?

Alec

 

[SCTA-1]

hecd2:

Marcia, this is particularly the issue that we have discussed from the outset. Wherever the Church declares a dogma that touches on the natural world, there is a danger that discoveries about the natural world will create difficult to resolve issues. We have already discussed Adam and Eve. In that case, the teaching of the Church is in clear disagreement with the facts.

In the case of Jesus’s humanity, it’s less clear cut: I have suggested two possible natural causes for the conception of Jesus, one of which would not violate the idea of the Immaculate Conception. Having said that, the whole notion of God taking on human nature requires such powerful miraculous intervention (and indeed the supernatural generation of a diploid zygote from one or two haploid eggs or the cloning of a somatic cell by the intervention of the Holy Spirit is itself a a miraculous event) that the miraculous conversion of one X-chromosome to a Y-chromosome in the zygote seems like straining at a gnat to me. If it is as claimed de fide, then one or several miracles are required anyway.

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

Alec, God taking on human nature is not the Immaculate Conception.It is called the Incarnation or Virgin Birth.The Immaculate Conception pertains to Mary being born without original sin but she was conceived naturally.God has blessed you with great intelligence in science.

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

Matt, there is extremely strong scientific evidence that there cannot have been two sole ancestors of extant humans in any generation in the last 6 million years. The existence of Adam and Eve as sole ancestors of modern humans is denied by the scientific evidence.

A human ancestor has to have both a human body AND a human soul. It is, of course, impossible for science to determine when the first human soul was breathed by God into a mortal body.

Nevertheless there cannot have been an Adam and Eve as sole ancestors of humanity, whatever the de fide belief is. So what does that say about the integrity of the tapestry?

You cannot disprove the statement that Adam and Eve are the sole ancestors of humanity since there is no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of a human soul. Science simply cannot answer the question of when the first human being appeared on earth, because science can say nothing at all about human souls.

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

Matt, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support the rather grotesque assertion that there has ever been a human alive that had no DNA.

Is the Catholic faith supposed to be based on scientific evidence? So what if there is no scientific evidence that Adam and Eve were immortal before they were cast out of the terrestrial paradise! This is a matter of faith, not science. There is no scientific that Purgatory, Heaven, and Hell exist either.

(In fact DNA is found in every living creature on earth - it is the univesal genetic code: there is no life without DNA).

Do angels have DNA? Are not angels living creatures?

 

[RobedWithLight]

If the Catholic faith would be based solely on scientific evidence, then there would be no religious faith at all to speak of, since everything would then have to be “proved”.

This demand for empirical “proof” for everything that Christians believe is sheer agnosticism. If truth is solely based on what is empirically verifiable, then we cannot accept it, because this principle that everything would have to be verified, cannot itself be verified. In short, the proposition is self-refuting. The alternative, faith, is far more superior.

Gerry

 

[Ghosty]

A human ancestor has to have both a human body AND a human soul. It is, of course, impossible for science to determine when the first human soul was breathed by God into a mortal body.

That just dodges the real issue at hand, which is that Adam and Eve DID have human souls, and that those human souls couldn’t have been in bodies that were the only genetic progenitors of the modern human race. The genetic evidence proves that we did not come from a single couple, at least as far as our bodies are concerned. There’s no way around this fact, so it’s time to either reformulate the traditional understanding of the Creation story while staying within Dogma, or drop the use of human reason entirely, which goes against Church teaching. This has nothing to do with when a soul was given to the human body, but rather the genetic evidence that is measurable within the current population.

Is the Catholic faith supposed to be based on scientific evidence? So what if there is no scientific evidence that Adam and Eve were immortal before they were cast out of the terrestrial paradise! This is a matter of faith, not science. There is no scientific that Purgatory, Heaven, and Hell exist either.

Not having DNA has nothing to do with immortality before the fall. The human body has DNA, and there is no human body without DNA. If you believe Adam and Eve had human bodies, then you must accept that they had DNA. No DNA, no human body; this has absolutely nothing to do with the human soul.

If the Catholic faith would be based solely on scientific evidence, then there would be no religious faith at all to speak of, since everything would then have to be “proved”.

It’s not about the Catholic faith basing itself soley on scientific evidence, but rather that faith and reason never disagree. This is a principle of Catholic teaching, as per the Catechism. We have a case here where reason and faith, at least in some folks’ proposals, simply do not agree. That is not Catholic, I’m afraid, nor does it indicate a particularily well informed faith.

 

[ISABUS]

Matt16_18:

A human ancestor has to have both a human body AND a human soul. It is, of course, impossible for science to determine when the first human soul was breathed by God into a mortal body.

You cannot disprove the statement that Adam and Eve are the sole ancestors of humanity since there is no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of a human soul. Science simply cannot answer the question of when the first human being appeared on earth, because science can say nothing at all about human souls.

Perhaps the following information about the human soul may be of some help. This is the definition of ‘soul’ found in my Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Soul. The thinking principle: that by which we feel, know, will, and by which the body is animated. The root of all forms of vital activity. It is a substance or a being which exists perse; it is simple or unextended, i.e., not composed of separte principles of any kind; it is spiritual, i.e., its existence, and to some extent its operations, are independent of matter; it is immortal. The soul is the substantial form of the body. There are three kinds of soul, vegetative, the root of vital activity in plants; sensitive, the root of vital activity in animals; intellectual, the root of vital activity in in man. The last contains the other two virtually; the sensitive contains the vegetative also virtually. The sensitive and vegetative soul are both simple but incomplete substances, incapable of existing apart from matter; they are therfore niether spiritual nor immortal.” The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Inc., 1952, p. 246

From what I understand, the ‘human soul’ is a person’s conscience which contains self-knowledge of being. I am not sure when this appeared in the evolutionary chain of animals.

Isabus ~

 

[ISABUS]

Matt16_18:

Is the Catholic faith supposed to be based on scientific evidence? So what if there is no scientific evidence that Adam and Eve were immortal before they were cast out of the terrestrial paradise! This is a matter of faith, not science. There is no scientific that Purgatory, Heaven, and Hell exist either.

Do angels have DNA? Are not angels living creatures?

The reason I don’t think angels are creatures is because my Catholic Encyclpedia states the following:

"Angels. Pure spirits created by God, probably at the same time as the visible creation. The word angel means a messenger and is sometimes used of a human person who acts as a mesenger 9e.g., Is. 18:2; 33:7). But normally the word is used in the English Bible only of those pure spirits who act as divine messengers. Thus God sends angels to announce His will, to correct, punish, teach, rebuke, console (Ps. 102:20; Matt. 4:11; 13:49; 26:53). The mission and apparition of angels is constantly mentioned in Scripture. Different grades or choirs are named: Seraphim (Is. 6:2, 6) ; Cherubim (Gen. 3:24; Ecclus. 49:10; Ezech. 10:1-22); Powers (Col. 1:16; 1 Pet. 3:22) ; Powers (Col. 1:16; 1 Pet. 3:22) ; Principalities (Col. 1:16) ; Archangels (1 Thess. 4:16); and Angels. . .

“A common theological teaching is that God appoints an angel to guard every soul from the moment of its birth. The Church has not defined this doctrine as of faith, but it is supported by Scripture (Ps. 90:11; Matt. 18:10) and by Catholic tradition. Pope Clement X approved the traditional devotion to the guardian angels, establishing October 2 as a feast in their honor thought the Western Church …” The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Inc., 1952, p. 13

I love angels! My favorite is St. Michael who is an archangel and leader of the good angels. Some people don’t believe in angels but I do.

Isabus ~

 

[porthos11]

ISABUS:

The reason I don’t think angels are creatures is because my Catholic Encyclpedia states the following:

"Angels. Pure spirits** created by God**,

Isabus ~

This is precisely why angels **are **creatures.

 

[ISABUS]

porthos11:

This is precisely why angels **are **creatures.

What fantasy land are you living in today? I see you have created your own dictionary which reflects imaginary creatures! Tell me do you hear them singing too? :whacky:

Why don’t you compliment your newly revised dictionary with what has already been published, “The Dictionary of Imaginary Places” by Alberto Manguel and Gianni Guadalupi, Harcourt Brace and Company, London, 2000. They have a fantastic array of illustrations you would just love!

Peace ~

Isabus