Questions about Mary's conception

[VeritasLuxMea]

How is it believed that Mary conceived? Did a sperm from God fertilize one of her eggs? Did this fertilization occur with no penetration?

I was going to ask if God merely “implanted” Christ’s fetus into her, but on second thought, I don’t think that makes sense because Jesus was the flesh of Mary and presumably that means one of her eggs must have been fertilized. Otherwise Jesus would not be human.

Then again, is it possible God simply implanted a fetus with Mary’s DNA built in?

Further, does God have his own DNA? How could that be? Wouldn’t that be limiting to him, to confine him to DNA?

Overall, I’m confused because it sounds to me like Jesus would actually have to have 3 parts: male (human), female (human) and God.

We know where the God part comes in, we know where the female (human) part comes in, but where does the male (human) part come from? I am left to believe that it comes from God?

If there are not 3 parts of Jesus, and it is merely human (female) and God, then how could Jesus be said to be “100%” human? He would only be 50% human in that case.

A tangentially related question: why in the world would a Roman census require people to move back to the towns of their ancestors? Having studied ancient history, I can see no rhyme or reason to such an idea. It doesn’t appear to be beneficial to Rome in any conceivable way.

 

[Aizi]

Are you a Catholic, Veritas?

God doesn’t have a sperm or DNA, and its generally believed that the Incarnation is miraculous and an absolute mystery–along with the Trinity and Divine Grace. I think the DNA aspect is the least of the mystery, God could will a Y chromosome if he needed that male aspect, as you say. Or he could simply will the physical body of a man and all the chemical changes and secondary sexual characteristics, nothing would be impossible for him. I read here once someone speculate that Jesus could have been an XX male, which is a super rare condition. :whacky: But in the end, all we can do is speculate, there’s no definitive answer and I don’t think there’s a way to reach it, or a reason, really.

Historically, there is some precedent for people moving back to their birthplaces. The census mentioned in Scripture is one area which is pretty hazy, and you can say that the Romans adopted their own practices to the locals (including Jewish tribal custom), as they were often wont to do. It didn’t raise any eyebrows from the early Christians, Jews and Pagans actually living in the Roman Empire and reading (and writing!) these early Gospels, who had more knowledge about the administration of the Roman Empire. In the modern day though, when so much information has been lost about ancient society, no one knows why the Romans would do such a thing. Some people dismiss that part of the Nativity altogether, but I don’t have a problem with it, simply because the aforementioned ancient Christians had no problem with it, and I think they know more on this subject than anyone living today would.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How is it believed that Mary conceived? Did a sperm from God fertilize one of her eggs? Did this fertilization occur with no penetration?

I was going to ask if God merely “implanted” Christ’s fetus into her, but on second thought, I don’t think that makes sense because Jesus was the flesh of Mary and presumably that means one of her eggs must have been fertilized. Otherwise Jesus would not be human.

Then again, is it possible God simply implanted a fetus with Mary’s DNA built in?

Further, does God have his own DNA? How could that be? Wouldn’t that be limiting to him, to confine him to DNA?

Overall, I’m confused because it sounds to me like Jesus would actually have to have 3 parts: male (human), female (human) and God.

We know where the God part comes in, we know where the female (human) part comes in, but where does the male (human) part come from? I am left to believe that it comes from God?

If there are not 3 parts of Jesus, and it is merely human (female) and God, then how could Jesus be said to be “100%” human? He would only be 50% human in that case.

A tangentially related question: why in the world would a Roman census require people to move back to the towns of their ancestors? Having studied ancient history, I can see no rhyme or reason to such an idea. It doesn’t appear to be beneficial to Rome in any conceivable way.

The Angel said: “The Holy Spirit will cover you with His Wings” ( or something like that). So, it seems that it was the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary. If there was no spermatozoa, Christ would be a clone.

Yes, with penetration, but not human (penis) penetration. If there was a spermetozoa, it had to reach the ovula.

In my country, there is a Christmas carol that Says: Jesus entered and exited Mary as the sun through the glass of a window.

That metaphor is enough for me. You, when you have a child, do not make so many questions, DNA, RNA, genes and so on. You do it and it’s done.

Why do you andguish so much about that?

Of course, it was a miracle: what else could it be?

 

[Nita]

Then again, is it possible God simply implanted a fetus with Mary’s DNA built in?

.

It is not possible. Jesus’ human flesh was generated from the substance of Mary’s flesh (by the power of the Holy Spirit - who is God).

The Athanasian Creed states:
…Accordingly it is the right faith, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and** he is man born of the substance of his mother **in time: perfect God, perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and a human body, …

 

[Nita]

…
I was going to ask if God merely “implanted” Christ’s fetus into her, but on second thought, I don’t think that makes sense because Jesus was the flesh of Mary and presumably that means one of her eggs must have been fertilized. Otherwise Jesus would not be human.

We don’t know what particular cell/s were used; it would not necessarily have had to be an ovum. Consider that Adam’s generation by the power of God was miraculous also; his flesh did not come from human parents.
Likewise Eve’s generation also was miraculous; her flesh came from a single human parent.

We know where the God part comes in, we know where the female (human) part comes in, but where does the male (human) part come from? I am left to believe that it comes from God?

It came about through the power of God’s will. God willed the flesh He selected from Mary to be male in gender. What God wills, happens. All He had to do was to will one of the “x” chromosomes in Mary’s flesh to be converted or replaced by a “y” chromosome.
(All males have a pair of “xy” chromosomes in each cell - in addition to the other chromosomes; females have a pair of “xx”.)

A tangentially related question: why in the world would a Roman census require people to move back to the towns of their ancestors? Having studied ancient history, I can see no rhyme or reason to such an idea. It doesn’t appear to be beneficial to Rome in any conceivable way.

The didn’t have to move back there – they just had to go there to register. Not too different from the way we have to go to certain areas to vote.

 

[centurionguard]

How is it believed that Mary conceived? Did a sperm from God fertilize one of her eggs? Did this fertilization occur with no penetration?

I was going to ask if God merely “implanted” Christ’s fetus into her, but on second thought, I don’t think that makes sense because Jesus was the flesh of Mary and presumably that means one of her eggs must have been fertilized. Otherwise Jesus would not be human.

Then again, is it possible God simply implanted a fetus with Mary’s DNA built in?

Further, does God have his own DNA? How could that be? Wouldn’t that be limiting to him, to confine him to DNA?

Overall, I’m confused because it sounds to me like Jesus would actually have to have 3 parts: male (human), female (human) and God.

We know where the God part comes in, we know where the female (human) part comes in, but where does the male (human) part come from? I am left to believe that it comes from God?

If there are not 3 parts of Jesus, and it is merely human (female) and God, then how could Jesus be said to be “100%” human? He would only be 50% human in that case.

A tangentially related question: why in the world would a Roman census require people to move back to the towns of their ancestors? Having studied ancient history, I can see no rhyme or reason to such an idea. It doesn’t appear to be beneficial to Rome in any conceivable way.

When it comes to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Conception I think it easy to get lost trying to unravel and rationalize the Mystery of her Conception in the Birth of Jesus both from the actual miraculous Conception itself and even in speaking when Mary came to the very moment of Jesus Birth.

Both were Miraculous (Supernatural) in every aspect beyond human understanding.

The Doctrine of Immaculate Conception helps explain. newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

With the believe in the Miraculous actual Birth of Jesus, many Saints and Popes have written extensively about Jesus Birth.

Pope Saint Leo the Great and Pope Pius XII

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Theological Defense of the Miraculous Birth motherofallpeoples.com/Articles/Marian_Private_Revelation/theological-defense-of-the-miraculous-birth.html

 

[anodos]

In my country, there is a Christmas carol that Says: Jesus entered and exited Mary as the sun through the glass of a window.

That sounds like one of the early heresies, maybe Arianism? If Jesus passed through Mary like sunlight through glass, or like water through a pipe, then he did not take His substance from her; she was not truly his mother, He was not truly human.

 

[centurionguard]

That sounds like one of the early heresies, maybe Arianism? If Jesus passed through Mary like sunlight through glass, or like water through a pipe, then he did not take His substance from her; she was not truly his mother, He was not truly human.

Not really; if you look at Mary’s miraculous supernatural (birth of Jesus) as passing through her forever virginal being as sunlight through glass in a metaphorical supernatural sense I don’t see anything outlandish or broaching heresy.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s giving birth of Jesus was not in the same physical manner woman give birth to infants.

 

[MaryandJoseph]

Is the need to know this answer Salvational or just curiosity? That is usually the first thing I ask myself when I come upon a question that makes no logical sense to my limited finite brain.

Its enough for me to trust God knows what He is doing and for what reasons.

Now if only I could figure out the minds of my teenage boys:shrug:

 

[JimG]

Not really; if you look at Mary’s miraculous supernatural (birth of Jesus) as passing through her forever virginal being as sunlight through glass in a metaphorical supernatural sense I don’t see anything outlandish or broaching heresy.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s giving birth of Jesus was not in the same physical manner woman give birth to infants.

Yes. How Jesus exited the womb of Mary at his birth is a distinct question from the “how” of the conception of Jesus, which is purely a matter of speculation, and really, none of our business.

Catholic doctrine is that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Is the need to know this answer Salvational or just curiosity? That is usually the first thing I ask myself when I come upon a question that makes no logical sense to my limited finite brain.

Both. Either. Neither. Whatever.

You ask questions and see where it leads.

If no one had ever asked a question about the nature of Jesus, then no one ever would have been saved by him (if I understand correctly.) You don’t always know what’s going to happen when you investigate a subject. You follow it where it leads.

Aizi:

Are you a Catholic, Veritas?

I am Catholic born, Catholic raised, Catholic confirmed, Catholic educated, worked for the Church, volunteer with the Church, have a religious in the family and Catholic married. There.

I will say that I think my Catholic education kinda sucked, as much as they meant well.

I do about 6 hours of study on the Bible and the faith per week. Have done so for years. Still, I feel like I know literally nothing. If you asked me, I still couldn’t explain definitively the purpose and circumstances of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Either I am stupid or God doesn’t want me to know anything. I suspect a mix of the two.
Pf:

Why do you andguish so much about that?

Of course, it was a miracle: what else could it be?

I don’t anguish; I inquire. In the same tradition of every well-meaning Catholic person.

So the short answer is, “we have no idea”? I will say that I anguish about that. It seems like every article of our faith is, “it’s a mystery.”

 

[anodos]

Not really; if you look at Mary’s miraculous supernatural (birth of Jesus) as passing through her forever virginal being as sunlight through glass in a metaphorical supernatural sense I don’t see anything outlandish or broaching heresy.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s giving birth of Jesus was not in the same physical manner woman give birth to infants.

Sorry…shut up, anodos. Shutting up…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

That sounds like one of the early heresies, maybe Arianism? If Jesus passed through Mary like sunlight through glass, or like water through a pipe, then he did not take His substance from her; she was not truly his mother, He was not truly human.

Metaphors are not interchangeable.
Yours of the pipe is just nauseating.
Look, english languages as any other language is tricky.
Prepositions can change the whole meaning of the sentence. They represent circumstances of place, time, cause, and so on.
I did not say what you said I said.
Yours

Jesus passed through Mary

is wrong.
That is NOT what I said.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

VeritasLuxMea:

How is it believed that Mary conceived? Did a sperm from God fertilize one of her eggs? Did this fertilization occur with no penetration?

The Bible is VERY clear on this account.

[bibleDRb] Luke 1:35[/bibledrb]

IOW, your exact question was asked by the Virgin Mary herself to the Archangel Gabriel. To go beyond that is to question God’s miracle. You may as well go through the entire ministry of Jesus and question exactly how every one of His miracles was accomplished scientifically.

Water to Wine----> what happened to the molecules? What process was used to change them?
Loaves and Fishes-----> how did they materialize? Many questions possible here.
etc. etc.

IOW, the miracles were beyond explanation because they are the direct works of God.

Miracles don’t have scientific explanations, that is why they are miracles.

So the short answer is, “we have no idea”? I will say that I anguish about that. It seems like every article of our faith is, “it’s a mystery.”

Yes. Why do you think they call it FAITH?
If everything was explainable by Science it would be called Science.

 

[anodos]

Metaphors are not interchangeable.
Yours of the pipe is just nauseating.

I agree. It wasn’t my metaphor; I found it Ronald Knox’s “Enthusiasm”. I’ll give you the quotes so that you might see where I was coming from and how it was possible for me to misinterpret your post (for which I’m very sorry!)

Enthusiasm, page 125, “[T]he medieval heretics, almost everywhere, denied the proposition that our Lord took Flesh of his blessed Mother. This is evidently Manichean doctrine; the Paulicians seem to have maintained, like Valentius, that our Lord had a celestial body which passed through that of our Lady as ‘water through a pipe’.”
next page, “Hoffman’s saying that ‘the Savior passed through the Virgin Mary as sunshine through a pane of glass’ is evidently doctrine that goes back to Valentinus.”

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I agree. It wasn’t my metaphor; I found it Ronald Knox’s “Enthusiasm”. I’ll give you the quotes so that you might see where I was coming from and how it was possible for me to misinterpret your post (for which I’m very sorry!)

Enthusiasm, page 125, “[T]he medieval heretics, almost everywhere, denied the proposition that our Lord took Flesh of his blessed Mother. This is evidently Manichean doctrine; the Paulicians seem to have maintained, like Valentius, that our Lord had a celestial body which passed through that of our Lady as ‘water through a pipe’.”
next page, “Hoffman’s saying that ‘the Savior passed through the Virgin Mary as sunshine through a pane of glass’ is evidently doctrine that goes back to Valentinus.”

Dont say sorry…
You notce that if there were not misunderstandings there were no Forum?
Then we would agree on everything…
Boring…

 

[Granpa_Lemon]

#1. Nobody really knows the answer.
#2. Is it REALLY all that important?

 

[dsdkeck]

How is it believed that Mary conceived? Did a sperm from God fertilize one of her eggs? Did this fertilization occur with no penetration?

I was going to ask if God merely “implanted” Christ’s fetus into her, but on second thought, I don’t think that makes sense because Jesus was the flesh of Mary and presumably that means one of her eggs must have been fertilized. Otherwise Jesus would not be human.

Then again, is it possible God simply implanted a fetus with Mary’s DNA built in?

Further, does God have his own DNA? How could that be? Wouldn’t that be limiting to him, to confine him to DNA?

Overall, I’m confused because it sounds to me like Jesus would actually have to have 3 parts: male (human), female (human) and God.

We know where the God part comes in, we know where the female (human) part comes in, but where does the male (human) part come from? I am left to believe that it comes from God?

If there are not 3 parts of Jesus, and it is merely human (female) and God, then how could Jesus be said to be “100%” human? He would only be 50% human in that case.

A tangentially related question: why in the world would a Roman census require people to move back to the towns of their ancestors? Having studied ancient history, I can see no rhyme or reason to such an idea. It doesn’t appear to be beneficial to Rome in any conceivable way.

Love the question!
Given me alot to meditate on.

1 Corinthians 2:10
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Ask a question, search God’s Word, it’s like looking for hidden treasure!

Interesting note:
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Isaiah 44:3
For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 John 5:6
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Job 33:4
The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Romans 8:10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Revelation 11:11
And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Philippians 2:16
Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;