Jesus' genetics

[pcusack1]

Therefore, the Messiah could not come from the line of Solomon. Jesus physically descended from Nathan, David’s son, thus making his Davidic, fulfilling that requirement. In any event, Jesus was also lawfully the son of Joseph giving him Joseph’s legal genealogy and since he did not physically descend from

This is what I was refering to whnne I was referring to the descendancy through Nathan. Joseph is not the bioligical father of David clearly.

 

[rcjones]

I have lurked for quite some time. I am amazed at the number of arguments made with no basis in scripture.

First is the presumption that the church has to prove anything about Jesus. The word of God doesn’t need defense, it needs preached. There are none so blind as those who will to not see. Faith comes by hearing… People who know God have no need to prove they know God.

Several have made the astute observation that challenges in Jesus’ day did not revolve around his genealogy from Solomon. That is a modern Jewish argument. In his day they argued that he was not the Son of God. Very good.

It is also an error to say that the Jews rejected Jesus. Where did the early church come from? They were Jewish! The Jews who rejected Jesus are the only Jews who rejected Jesus. The rest accepted him. Modern Jews are descendants of those who rejected him, of course they still reject him! Why would one look to them to be an authority on the Messiah?

They first had to persecute Christians to try to keep Jews from flocking to the risen Lord. So many were finding Christ in their own scriptures that they had to invent Cabala to distract them from him. Later they were still finding him, so they added vowels to the language to further obfuscate the images of Christ in the old Testament. Then they had to tell those who examined the shadows and types that "when they saw the white rock, not to say “water, water”. Or in other words, when you see Christ, not to call him the Torah word of God in heaven and on earth.

The book of Ruth and the story of Tamar both contain shadows showing how God fulfills the Leverate law in producing the Son of promise. The Leverate law could certainly be considered a type of adoption. If you follow the details, Jesus is the son of promise by the Leverate law.

Solomon himself was the adopted Son of God.
1 Chron 22:10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

Someone said correctly that prophecy must be interpreted correctly. If there were a living prophet today he would be a cross-dressing goatherd. The prophets spoke in “dinner theater” and did abominable things to show the condition of Israel.

In the shadows when you have a first and second son, together they are a picture of Christ. Solomon and Nathan together are a picture of Christ. Solomon represents the first son who loses his inheritance, and Nathan the second son who gains it, just like Cain/Abel, Ishmael/Isaac and Esau/Jacob. The reason for the pattern is that Jesus is the second man… the second Adam.

Jesus in the flesh was left desolate and cut off just like the first sons. The risen Christ, the second son, was fruitful and multiplied, just like the second sons.

It gets confusing with the symbols, but they must be considered individually before being considered collectively.He is the unbegotten only son, the only begotten son, and the second son. Adoption is one of the ways the symbols show he is the unbegotten son. Jesus fulfills contradictory prophecies. Only He can.

And the silliest question is the original about DNA. The God who spoke creation into existence could certainly give Jesus David and Solomon’s DNA if it were a requirement. Why would anyone argue that a miracle must follow “natural” methods. The fact that one would ask for fingers of Jesus to examine DNA shows that one doesn’t believe he rose from the dead.

God didn’t have to produce an earthquake or a wind to part the Red Sea. He split the primeval waters with a word. It is presumptuous to hold God to rules that man makes up. In the same way, it is presumptuous to hold God to a man’s quirky interpretation of the scriptures.

It is our responsibility to presume that what God says is true and seek to understand it, rather than always inventing ways to “prove” God a liar.

 

[pcusack1]

Thank you for your long response. But I take up the gantulet to offset your points.

1. The Jews were looking for a male descendant of David to be the Messiah. They still are. The Church, or Christians, must show that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah to get past square 1. After 700 veiwings, no one cna show how Jesus is a descendant of David in the physical sense. (i.e. Jesus must carry Davids’ Y DNA. Even the Gospel writers knew this but they got it wrong)
2. Scripture tells us that a Kignn will always sit on the Throne of David. Jer 33:17 Therefore the line must pass through Solomon not Nathan.
3. I stated that some Jews rejectd Jesus in response to the argument that some Jews accept Jesus.
4. Thew early Church was populated by many gentiles (the Roman Centurion, the Sick woman etc.) Even St. Paul went to the Gentiles when the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus said he came for the lost sheep of Israel, but they accepted him not. It was after the Emperor Constantine accepted and promulgated the Christian Church for the entire Meditrian world that gentiles became the main source of converts to the faith. The fiath didn;t spread very well to places that were under Roman control.
5. There is a contradiction in your argument: You say that God said "I will establish his Throne over Israel forever about Solomon. Early you said that the Throne passed through Nathan.
6. You say that “if David’s DNA were a requirement?” Obviously form Scripture it is a requirement. If God gave it to him, then he is not a son of David but of God.
7. It 's not that God is a liar, it would be Christians who are mistaken about what they believe, but I would’nt use that term anyway.

After 700 viewings, there’s no one who can show that Jesus is a descendant of David.

 

[Strategery]

It is also an error to say that the Jews rejected Jesus. Where did the early church come from? They were Jewish! The Jews who rejected Jesus are the only Jews who rejected Jesus. The rest accepted him. Modern Jews are descendants of those who rejected him, of course they still reject him! Why would one look to them to be an authority on the Messiah?.

I disagree that it’s error. John described it this way. When he referred to “the Jews” he was typically referring to the ruling class and by and large, that is the class that rejected Jesus. The rejection of Jesus was a major theme of the fourth gospel.

 

[Strategery]

Thank you for your long response. But I take up the gantulet to offset your points.

1. The Jews were looking for a male descendant of David to be the Messiah. They still are. The Church, or Christians, must show that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah to get past square 1. After 700 veiwings, no one cna show how Jesus is a descendant of David in the physical sense. (i.e. Jesus must carry Davids’ Y DNA. Even the Gospel writers knew this but they got it wrong)

.

You’ve gotten yourself to the point that David’s y - chromosome is key to everything - square 1, if you don’t get past there, you’re nowhere. That’s your extrapolation and is not scriptural.

Clearly the Jews that were in the dialogue with Jesus were not concerned with his DNA. They did not say “do you have a y chromosome from David?” They did not say “submit a blood sample so we can compare your DNA to these remains of David we have sitting here, and see if you got your y-chromosome from him.”

For the Pharisees themselves, this was not the standard of proof.

So how did they look at it?

John 10

*24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify to me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 13 and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.
30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?”
33 The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” *

snip

*37 If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me;
38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
39 (Then) they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power.
40 He went back across the Jordan to the place where John first baptized, and there he remained.
41 Many came to him and said, “John performed no sign, but everything John said about this man was true.”
42 And many there began to believe in him. *

 

[Sir_Anthony]

Clearly the Jews that were in the dialogue with Jesus were not concerned with his DNA. They did not say “do you have a y chromosome from David?” They did not say “submit a blood sample so we can compare your DNA to these remains of David we have sitting here, and see if you got your y-chromosome from him.”

So how did they look at it?

Indeed, you are a correct, it would be impossible to prove genetics back then, because well the Jews of Palestine had no workable theory of genetics. And considering the nature of Mary’s pregnancy would have been known to very few, and very few would doubt then that Jesus was Joseph’s son among the villagers and neighbors.

My original post and intent was about the nature of the other half of Jesus’ DNA, certainly miraclous in nature about what might it look like, was it something created independently of God, like a special DNA totally unique, did it derive from Mary, or something like that. Which may be silly to ask, but it is something we can harmlessly spectulate. Like whether Mary being without sin would experience birth pains which is another thread for another day.

 

[rcjones]

The Church, or Christians, must show that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah to get past square 1.

“Must”?? For your satisfaction? You don’t accept the evidence given by those who were eye witnesses. You don’t accept the testimony of martyrs. You don’t accept the testimony of saints. You claim that everything hinges on DNA. The fact is that you must accept Christ to get past square 1.

It sure seems that 2000 years might be just a speck past square 1.

Both Matthew and Luke trace back to David. Yet you don’t accept it. It seems that they would know their customs of genealogy better than you.

God said he was the son of David through His angel:
Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

It is obvious that God said he was qualified to sit on the throne and that his sitting fulfilled his promise to David. So what makes you more qualified than the angel of the Lord to declare Jesus not the son of David, and not qualified to sit on the throne? What makes you more qualified than God to declare how God must fulfill his promises? Which prophecy of scripture has you ever made come true? Which universe did you create and run successfully for any period of time?

3 ¶ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

I would think that those claiming Jesus isn’t the Messiah would fit the category of scoffer.

If you won’t believe God, you won’t believe anything anyone here says.

moving along. Nothing here to see…

 

[Padraig_77]

This is what I was refering to whnne I was referring to the descendancy through Nathan. Joseph is not the bioligical father of David clearly.

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Since Joseph raised Jesus as his own son, Jesus is regarded as Joseph’s son thus entitling Jesus to Joseph’s genealogy.

“He that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father” - Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1.

Also see Sanhedrin 19b and Megilah 13a.

 

[Padraig_77]

There is not one woman listed in the descendancy list of Kings fromm David down to Jesus in both Luke and Matthew. I would say that’s a pretty strong indication that the Kingship is passed only through the men. The women mentioned such as Ruth were an indication of the mothers of a King - not the King themselves.

Matthew 1 lists four women (indirectly):

vs 3. Judah fathered Perez from Tamar
vs 5. Salmon fathered Boaz from Rahab
Boaz fathered Obed from Ruth
David fathered Solomon from Bathsheba

Jerimiah 33:17 states that " David will never be without a man (some translations say descendant) sitting on the Throne of Isreal.

The Jerusalem Bible states "For Yahweh says to David, “David shall never lack a male descendant to sit on the Throne of the House of Israel”

Mary never sat on the Throne of Israel, as far as I know.

It is Jerimiah 33:17. I correctly quoted a book on “Moshiach” that had Jerimiah 3:17. Sorry.

This is technically true, but the wording is not proper. When they went into captivity there was no throne of Israel for 36 years. The wording makes it sound as though the throne would be consistently manned by David’s descendants.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Jeremiah 33:17 was speaking of the Messiah.

Jeremiah 33:17 The promises of perpetuity of the throne of David fulfilled in Messiah, the son of David (2 Samuel 7:16, 1 Kings 2:4, Psalms 89:4,29,36; compare Luke 1:32-33).

Though the inheritance could pass through the woman, she was not officially recognized in the genealogy. And Luke properly followed this protocol in that he did not list Mary, but cataloged Jesus and Mary’s father Heli (Eliachim, Joachim).

 

[Strategery]

My original post and intent was about the nature of the other half of Jesus’ DNA, certainly miraclous in nature about what might it look like, was it something created independently of God, like a special DNA totally unique, did it derive from Mary, or something like that. Which may be silly to ask, but it is something we can harmlessly spectulate. Like whether Mary being without sin would experience birth pains which is another thread for another day.

I definitely agree. Somehow or another, God got 'er done. He provided what was needed. For all I know, he could have put David’s DNA in there. No wait, that might carry original sin …

I don’t think it’s silly, sometimes it’s fun to ponder such things. I personally wonder what the scenes were like when Christ was evading the people trying to arrest him or stone him. Was it like walking into the corn in “Field of Dreams”? In the end I think all of such pondering opens eyes to the wonder of the signs themselves.

My response was geared toward the y-chromosome discussion, because it at least appears that this is an issue of faith for the pcusack1. It’s easy to get off track by placing human limitations on God.

 

[pprimeau1976]

That would make Jesus a woman since Mary can’t give her offspring the male Y DNA. She doesn’t possess it.

Not necessarily. It is possible for males to have two X chomosomes. It’s not normal, but it is possible. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome.

 

[pprimeau1976]

This is one of the reasons Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. According to Jewish ideas the Messiah must have a patrilineal relationship with King David.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Does this mean that the Jews believe that Jesus had no biological father and was concieved by the Holy Spirit? If not, who do they think was the biological father?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I believe God supplied the male DNA. What if Mary supplied the Davidic DNA? Could Mary’s family have been from the tribe of Judah and line of David? ( I know nothing of biblical genetics; I’m just asking the question.)

 

[CryptoCatholic]

This is probably a silly topic to talk about, but I wonder what some folks take on it is. As we understand human genetics, male and female supply 23 chromosomes each and humans have 46 chromosomes. Now my question is what would Jesus’ other 23 chromosomes be (besides Mary’s). Did God create 23 chromosomes specific for Jesus, or is other half of his genetic code also from Mary (which would parthenogenesis, something observed in fishes and reptiles, but not mammals)?

I believe that Mary supplied half of the chromosomes, and God Himself supplied the other half. Genetically, the man’s chromosomes determine the fetus’ gender. God’s contribution therefore made Jesus a male, physically.

There is a fascinating consideration built into the opening post, here: Is the ova from Mary’s reproductive tract, present in her from before her birth, which became Jesus at the time of Jesus’ miraculous conception, THE reason for Mary’s immaculate conception – her freedom from the stain of Original Sin? I.e., even more intimate than Mary’s role as the “container” of the perfection of our Lord Jesus Christ in her womb is the joining of God’s contribution to Jesus’ miraculous conception when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary to Mary’s ova.

 

[pcusack1]

Mary is considered to be from the Tribe of Judah and the line of David which is shown in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Its is important because Jews get their Jewish Identy form their mothers.

However, we know in genetics that women don’t carry the male Y-DNA (i’e. David’s DNA) . There’s no way Mary could provide it, therefore, how is Jesus a descendant of David?

Since Jesus is fully human , he must have been a descendant of David, them he must have had David’s Y DNA… But them is them problem: Did God impregnate Mary with her great grand father’s Y-DNA?

It’s not idol speculation because Jesus must be a descendant of David in order to be the Jewish Messiah.

Some ar using the argument that the text must be corupt.They alsao say that we must intrepret the prophets correctly when it is clear that it doesn’t agree with what they believe. Or theat we don’t believe in the word of God whne its God word that w’e’re examining. Or the old arghument that since the church is 2000 years old it must therefoe be true.etc etc.Then come the personal attacks.

 

[Awake]

Not necessarily. It is possible for males to have two X chomosomes. It’s not normal, but it is possible. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome.

As the wikipedia article states, they are not actually male. They just appear to be male.

A male can have XXY chromosomes, but they have to have the Y chromosome to be a male.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

My original post and intent was about the nature of the other half of Jesus’ DNA, certainly miraclous in nature about what might it look like, was it something created independently of God, like a special DNA totally unique, did it derive from Mary, or something like that. Which may be silly to ask, but it is something we can harmlessly spectulate. Like whether Mary being without sin would experience birth pains which is another thread for another day.

The Incarnation is God made flesh, and the union of Mary and the Holy Spirit. For some reason, people are assuming that the paternal DNA used to create Jesus must have been pre-existent in human form. That would make Jesus the son of Mary and another man. Or, even more implausible, that all of his human DNA must have come from Mary.

The very nature of the Incarnation is that God entered the natural birth cycle physically.

God created the physical world in its elemental form. God created the first man and woman without DNA. Why would he not create his own DNA? The paternal DNA for Jesus was the DNA of God.

What what it look like? A perfect human form.

 

[pcusack1]

Neither of those explicitly states that an adopted son is ineligible. The going hypothesis around here is that the adoptive bond is strong enough to even inherit kingship.

I think you are right! Joseph named Jesus (Matthew) and therefore was his rightful father. A Throne is not usually thought of this was but it is property and can be inherited. Given the mystery of Jesus’ conception, His lineage must have been miraculous as well. Jesus is King through David and Solomon and Joseph!

 

[pprimeau1976]

As the wikipedia article states, they are not actually male. They just appear to be male.

A male can have XXY chromosomes, but they have to have the Y chromosome to be a male.

Keep in mind this is the definition of a male after the discovery of genes and chromosomes.

 

[pcusack1]

Did you know that some Jews believe in two Messiahs: Moshiach Ben Joseph and Moshiach Ben David (Ben means son of). What if Jesus were Moshiach ben Joseph. Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus the “son of Joseph”. That would mean that there wasn’t a miraculous conception, so that Jesus got his YDNA from Joseph his father. Note that the Jews don’'t believe that the Moshiach is God. He is thought to be only a regular Human Being. Note Revelation 2:26. cvlearly there are two who sit on the Thorne of David. We could be waiting for Moshiach Ben David.

hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Mashiach_ben_Yosef/mashiach_ben_yosef.html