Why wasn't Jesus a woman?

[mlchance]

That doesn’t even address the question. You’ve just said, “Jesus wasn’t female because he wasn’t.”

That statement makes no sense. “Because” is not a reason – logically, you’ve said “A implies A”, or “1 = 1”. That doesn’t tell you anything at all.

Tautologies are useful albeit limited. They point out things that must be true because otherwise a fundamental contradiction arises. To see how this works, please try to do some simple math in which 1 does not equal 1.

The Son of God is eternal; with the Incarnation, the Son of God had to be male. In no other way could the Incarnation express the eternal relationship within the Trinity between Father and Son as well as bring to reality the whole plan of salvation that started with the Fall in the Garden.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[benedictus2]

Tautologies are useful albeit limited. They point out things that must be true because otherwise a fundamental contradiction arises. To see how this works, please try to do some simple math in which 1 does not equal 1.

The Son of God is eternal; with the Incarnation, the Son of God had to be male. In no other way could the Incarnation express the eternal relationship within the Trinity between Father and Son as well as bring to reality the whole plan of salvation that started with the Fall in the Garden.

– Mark L. Chance.

Very good point!

 

[CentralFLJames]

Tautologies are useful albeit limited. They point out things that must be true because otherwise a fundamental contradiction arises. To see how this works, please try to do some simple math in which 1 does not equal 1.

The Son of God is eternal; with the Incarnation, the Son of God had to be male. In no other way could the Incarnation express the eternal relationship within the Trinity between Father and Son as well as bring to reality the whole plan of salvation that started with the Fall in the Garden.

– Mark L. Chance.

True. The eternalness of God The Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is an a-priori condition where Creation and the Incarnation MUST by natural Divine Order manifest the same relationships between Father and Son that has always been and will always be. In a sense it was impossible for Jesus to be born a woman since this role does not exist in the Trinity. In other words, Jesus was not born a woman because that relational aspect is not principally manifest in God’s eternal triune nature.

Again, I think the order of creation where woman comes into being out of man’s side is significant and prefigures The Church in a decidedly feminine role - as bride for the bridegroom. That is we see The Church coming out of Jesus’ side on the cross when water and blood flow out when He is pierced (as in birth and breaking of water). It is further seen in noting that Jesus is figuratively in deep sleep for three days before being re-awoken at the resurrection (remarkably similar to Adam’s deep sleep in Eve’s creation).

This question thus asks in a rather round about way “Why is God’s Nature as it is?” The answer is because God is who He Is and even names Himself as “I am who I Am” . How is that for saying 1=1 and 1=3=1 and more than we can imagine?

Also, I think the order by which God manifests “Creation” in the Genesis accounts is relevant here.

*Genesis 1:1-3
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. *

Here I am inclined to put forward for the benefit of any who would want to object to the legitimacy of the patriarchal nature of God The Father the notion that the Creative Act is a decidedly “male” or masculine act. It is through the mysterious and unfathomable intimate motion of The Spirit that God floods and implants the “seed” of light into the barren corpus of His raw Creation; the very same corpus from which all life is ultimately begotten in a cascade repetition of that primal creative act. That is, God sets in motion the natural order which Creation through nature replicates the same primal reproductive pattern we still see in replicating seed bearing plants, animals and eventually humans. But as far as we are told it is only humans that God elects to create as male and female in a unique recursive manner. That is, woman is made by God Himself from Man who He originally forms from the fertile soil or “humus” of the earth - thus “humans”.

Why wasn’t Jesus a woman? Because it would create an impossible contradiction to God’s Nature.

James

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I see it this way…

Men have an X and a Y chromosome
Women have only X chromosomes
This obviously does not make either one better
But it does make them different

Therefore

In order for all humanity to conform to Jesus
Jesus would need to have
Both an X and a Y chromosome

 

[Eddie_D]

I see it this way…

Men have an X and a Y chromosome
Women have only X chromosomes
This obviously does not make either one better
But it does make them different

Therefore

In order for all humanity to conform to Jesus
Jesus would need to have
Both an X and a Y chromosome

That’s all very well but since Jesus had **human **DNA only from his mother’s side, surely he is from a DNA persepective humanly female?

 

[CentralFLJames]

That’s all very well but since Jesus had **human **DNA only from his mother’s side, surely he is from a DNA persepective humanly female?

Poor logic. You are making unwarranted assumptions. If you accept the Catholic Christology Jesus was pure God and pure Man in all things but sin. As such, Jesus would have had the same biological nature of a perfect man and therefor would have had both X and Y chromosomes.

Since Jesus was a perfect human there would be no freak of nature situations where He would have for example two Xs and a Y chromosome as we see in Klinefelter’s syndrome or one X and two Ys (XYY syndrome) or where the SRY is damaged or copied to the X (leading to an XX male).

James

 

[Eddie_D]

Poor logic. You are making unwarranted assumptions. If you accept the Catholic Christology Jesus was pure God and pure Man in all things but sin. As such, Jesus would have had the same biological nature of a perfect man and therefor would have had both X and Y chromosomes.

Since Jesus was a perfect human there would be no freak of nature situations where He would have for example two Xs and a Y chromosome as we see in Klinefelter’s syndrome or one X and two Ys (XYY syndrome) or where the SRY is damaged or copied to the X (leading to an XX male).

James

Not making any assumptions. Am not disputing that Jesus was fully human and male or asserting that he was in some way a freak of nature. I’m just musing. And it’s an inescapable biological fact (if you accept his divine paternity) that there was no human male DNA contribution to his conception. The only human DNA is from his mother. Therefore, from a specifically human DNA perspective, it could be argued that Jesus has more in common with females than males. Unless you can explain where his human male DNA came from?

 

[BRZ]

Well, considering God can do anything, why couldn’t God just will Jesus to have both X and Y chromosomes. Why does it have to be a scientific thing at all?

 

[Eddie_D]

Well, considering God can do anything, why couldn’t God just will Jesus to have both X and Y chromosomes. Why does it have to be a scientific thing at all?

I guess cos Jesus is fully human as well as fully divine? He’s not some human/divine hybrid. Yes, God can do anything but he chose to become human and be born in the usual way humans are born. But Jesus’ conception was not the usual way humans are conceived: there was no human male contribution, therefore no specifically human male DNA in his makeup.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I guess cos Jesus is fully human as well as fully divine? He’s not some human/divine hybrid. Yes, God can do anything but he chose to become human and be born in the usual way humans are born. But Jesus’ conception was not the usual way humans are conceived: there was no human male contribution, therefore no specifically human male DNA in his makeup.

Actually, I do not believe that The Church has ever officially committed on the mechanism by which God worked the miracle of the Incarnation. When Mary said “let it be done according to thy Word” it could very well have been that The Holy Spirit having received Mary’s consent contributed the essential male elements necessary for life at the very first cell division of her human egg. In fact if I were to choose where to assume I would assume that God made good on His ancient promise to Abraham to make his descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and to preserve the Davidic lineage. If God could provide the first complete XY DNA for Adam from the dust of the ground then surely He could manufacture from Mary’s own Davidic DNA or manifest within Mary the essential male contribution necessary for a perfect male descendant of David and Abraham. Yes? Or are we to assume that Adam, got his DNA from a worm of the soil?

James

 

[Eddie_D]

Actually, I do not believe that The Church has ever officially committed on the mechanism by which God worked the miracle of the Incarnation. When Mary said “let it be done according to thy Word” it could very well have been that The Holy Spirit having received Mary’s consent contributed the essential male elements necessary for life at the very first cell division of her human egg. In fact if I were to choose where to assume I would assume that God made good on His ancient promise to Abraham to make his descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and to preserve the Davidic lineage. If God could provide the first complete XY DNA for Adam from the dust of the ground then surely He could manufacture from Mary’s own Davidic DNA or manifest within Mary the essential male contribution necessary for a perfect male descendant of David and Abraham. Yes? Or are we to assume that Adam, got his DNA from a worm of the soil?

James

As I said, I assume nothing.

The default sex of the human embryo is female, so all us guys started off as gals That’s how the Creator clearly intended it to be. (Not sure what that implies for Adam’s DNA but I think we can rule out the worm ). The Church tells us that human life begins at conception. Science tells us that that human life is always female.

The doctrine of the incarnation states that Jesus was fully human so I doubt that Jesus is somehow exempt from ordinary natural laws and biological patterns, including having DNA and male chromosomes. You have speculated on how God might have made him male. That’s not my point. My point is that biologically speaking, Jesus had only female human DNA but clearly that was sufficient to make him fully human.

 

[CentralFLJames]

As I said, I assume nothing.

The default sex of the human embryo is female, so all us guys started off as gals That’s how the Creator clearly intended it to be. (Not sure what that implies for Adam’s DNA but I think we can rule out the worm ). The Church tells us that human life begins at conception. Science tells us that that human life is always female.

The doctrine of the incarnation states that Jesus was fully human so I doubt that Jesus is somehow exempt from ordinary natural laws and biological patterns, including having DNA and male chromosomes. You have speculated on how God might have made him male. That’s not my point. My point is that biologically speaking, Jesus had only female human DNA but clearly that was sufficient to make him fully human.

Sorry but you are assuming plenty here. You are assuming that Jesus had only female human DNA. I say that this is an assumption and I say it is wrong by simply projecting the fact that Christ was most definately male and its impossible for a person to be a perfect “normal” male without the XY chromosome pair. A perfect man by definition is capable of reproducing and passing on the essential nature to bring forth life - in both the male and female forms. If Christ did not have a normal XY chromosome pair then He would be “deficient” and not a prefect male since He would not be able to naturally contribute his seed to produce a male child. That would be a “defect” in Jesus’ humanity and a blemish on the perfect unblemished male lamb.

But more fundamentally I challenge your science as well. There is no such thing as a “default Female”. Outside of genetic tinkering and cloning there is simply NO LIFE in an unfertilized egg and therefor there is no default condition of “female”. The male MUST contribute 1/2 of His DNA to contribute to a new human life - either male or female. A female egg does not normally spontaneously create a female human without a male contribution of DNA. Therefor, it is wrong to say that men all started off as female and finished as male. Unless the biology has changed since I was in school we are biologically programmed to be male or female at the very first moment the egg is fertilized and the egg cell splits into a new unique cell of combined DNA of father and mother that is unique and never before seen on the planet. Even same sex perfect twins have unique fingerprints.

James

 

[Eddie_D]

Sorry but you are assuming plenty here. You are assuming that Jesus had only female human DNA. I say that this is an assumption and I say it is wrong by simply projecting the fact that Christ was most definately male and its impossible for a person to be a perfect “normal” male without the XY chromosome pair. A perfect man by definition is capable of reproducing and passing on the essential nature to bring forth life - in both the male and female forms. If Christ did not have a normal XY chromosome pair then He would be “deficient” and not a prefect male since He would not be able to naturally contribute his seed to produce a male child. That would be a “defect” in Jesus’ humanity and a blemish on the perfect unblemished male lamb.

But more fundamentally I challenge your science as well. There is no such thing as a “default Female”. Outside of genetic tinkering and cloning there is simply NO LIFE in an unfertilized egg and therefor there is no default condition of “female”. The male MUST contribute 1/2 of His DNA to contribute to a new human life - either male or female. A female egg does not normally spontaneously create a female human without a male contribution of DNA. Therefor, it is wrong to say that men all started off as female and finished as male. Unless the biology has changed since I was in school we are biologically programmed to be male or female at the very first moment the egg is fertilized and the egg cell splits into a new unique cell of combined DNA of father and mother that is unique and never before seen on the planet. Even same sex perfect twins have unique fingerprints.

James

Nope, still not assuming. Without a human father, Jesus could not biologically have had human male DNA. So his conception was achieved in a different way to the normal way of humans. (Mary ‘did not know man’ but was ‘overshadowed by the Holy Spirit’ - definitely not the usual way of human conception) So, in the absence of human male DNA, female human DNA must have been sufficient to make him human. I’m not hung up on knowing how (or why) he became male

As for the default sex idea - not mine. I could provide many links to support it but this one is the least jargon-laden arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_050901.htm

QUOTE: the default sex of the human embryo is female unless it is acted upon by certain trigger biomolecules

 

[CentralFLJames]

Nope, still not assuming. Without a human father, Jesus could not biologically have had human male DNA. So his conception was achieved in a different way to the normal way of humans. (Mary ‘did not know man’ but was ‘overshadowed by the Holy Spirit’ - definitely not the usual way of human conception) So, in the absence of human male DNA, female human DNA must have been sufficient to make him human. I’m not hung up on knowing how (or why) he became male

As for the default sex idea - not mine. I could provide many links to support it but this one is the least jargon-laden arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_050901.htm

But you** are assuming** that The Holy Spirit did not miraculously contribute (through whatever spiritual or physical means) human DNA. Further you are being inconsistent since you acknowledge that Adam was created and he had the human DNA of a male without having a human father. If he did not then none of us boys would be around now would we?

So how is it that you have such a problem assuming that Jesus could not be conceived in a manner that gave him full male genetic material? It seems to me that you are assuming that miracles can only be a miracle up to a certain point where the biology of human DNA must make up the deficit so the biology text books work. The fallacy you are making is assuming that Jesus’ Divinity somehow limited Him from also being fully human. I just can’t for the life of me wrap my mind around how you can accept the mystery of Jesus being both God and man but not accept that Jesus in His humanity was every bit a full and perfect man and therefor had to have XY chromosomes and all the essential nature of a full man (less sin). The only way you could convince me that your position is rational and not arbitrary would be to make a case that the X chromosome is how original sin is passed and that all women are born sinless. Fat chance.

James

 

[Eddie_D]

But you** are assuming** that The Holy Spirit did not miraculously contribute (through whatever spiritual or physical means) human DNA. ** No, I’m not. I’m stating a fact of the incarnation: Jesus did not have a human biological father. I said nothing about how the incarnation was achieved without human male DNA. I don’t know. No-one does. It’s a mystery, right?** Further you are being inconsistent since you acknowledge that Adam was created and he had the human DNA of a male without having a human father. If he did not then none of us boys would be around now would we?** How is that even relevant? Adam didn’t have a human mother either…unless you want to re-visit your worm theory **
So how is it that you have such a problem assuming that Jesus could not be conceived in a manner that gave him full male genetic material? ** I don’t, and I don’t know why you assume I do. ** It seems to me that you are assuming that miracles can only be a miracle up to a certain point where the biology of human DNA must make up the deficit so the biology text books work. The fallacy you are making is assuming that Jesus’ Divinity somehow limited Him from also being fully human. You need to show me where I said any of that. The only one doing any assuming here is you I just can’t for the life of me wrap my mind around how you can accept the mystery of Jesus being both God and man but not accept that Jesus in His humanity was every bit a full and perfect man and therefor had to have XY chromosomes and all the essential nature of a full man (less sin). ** Again, I have never denied that Jesus is fully human and fully male so I don’t understand why you’re getting so bent out of shape over this. ** The only way you could convince me that your position is rational and not arbitrary I could care less about your opinion of my ‘position’, which is nothing more than a re-iteration of the mystery of the incarnation: that Jesus was born of a human mother and a divine father and yet was fully human and fully divine would be to make a case that the X chromosome is how original sin is passed and that all women are born sinless. ** Nope, just the one!**Fat chance.

James

 

[benedictus2]

I see it this way…

Men have an X and a Y chromosome
Women have only X chromosomes
This obviously does not make either one better
But it does make them different

Therefore

In order for all humanity to conform to Jesus
Jesus would need to have
Both an X and a Y chromosome

Hey, that is certainly a brilliant way of looking at it.

 

[benedictus2]

I guess cos Jesus is fully human as well as fully divine? He’s not some human/divine hybrid. Yes, God can do anything but he chose to become human and be born in the usual way humans are born. But Jesus’ conception was not the usual way humans are conceived: there was no human male contribution, therefore no specifically human male DNA in his makeup.

But being male, he is still an XY. The source of His maleness is not the one in question here. Just that he is male so has both x and y chromosomes.

 

[Ignatius]

Recently it seems more and more people are questioning God and his authority, and why woman can’t be priests. Perhaps this is one of the great questions in our culture today.

You’re statement a bit outdated. There is absolutely no support for this among the youth. This particular form of dissension actually has been on the wane for more than twenty years. There will continue to be a few die hards for the next couple decades, but then they will all be able to explain their dissension from the Authentic and clear Magisterial teaching of The Catholic Church to the one who will judge the living and the dead.

 

[BRZ]

Eddie D you are limiting God to what your understanding of Science is. God is never limited by science, God created all laws and can break them. God can do anything, regardless of what any laws of science may say.

 

[Eddie_D]

.God is never limited by science, God created all laws and can break them. God can do anything, regardless of what any laws of science may say.

I agree.

But I reiterate: I am not limiting God in any way. In fact, I am expressly pointing to the absolute limitless of God, who can do all things. I am stating a fact of the incarnation: there was no human male contributor of human male DNA in Jesus’ conception. You agree? Because if you don’t, our debate here is finished since you are denying a central fact of the incarnation - that Jesus did not have a human biological father.

Yet, Jesus was fully human - another central fact of the incarnation and also part of its mystery. How did God achieve that? I don’t know. No human knows.That’s why it’s called a mystery. I do know that it was not achieved in the usual way of human conception but I’ve no interest in speculating on the mechanics (if that’s the right word) of it because my finite mind will never figure it out. It is sufficient for me to believe firmly that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. That does not stop me from musing on the significance of the fact that Jesus DID have a human biological mother.