Why wasn't Jesus a woman?

[BRZ]

Yes, but the problem was you saying that Jesus did not contain X, Y chromosomes.

 

[Eddie_D]

Yes, but the problem was you saying that Jesus did not contain X, Y chromosomes.

Never said that. I said the only specifically human DNA he had from a human contributor was from his mother. How he had human male chromosomes (which I have never disputed) is part of the mystery of his incarnation.

 

[BRZ]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

These are quotes from you. It is true you did not specifically say Jesus didn’t have X,Y chromosomes but you pretty much implied it. I understand Jesus’ conception was not normal, simply because God can do anything. You say Female Human DNA must have been sufficient to make him human but you do not know if that is the case at all. Again, maybe God introduced Male DNA into Mary, who knows? I don’t but I am just saying don’t limit God. You also say you doubt Jesus is exempt from ordinary natural law and biological patterns, but the point is that Jesus is God and therefore he is exempt by anything he wants to be exempt to.

 

[Eddie_D]

These are quotes from you. It is true you did not specifically say Jesus didn’t have X,Y chromosomes but you pretty much implied it. ** No I did not. I specifically stated he is a human male. How is that implying that he didn’t have male chromosomes**. I understand Jesus’ conception was not normal, simply because God can do anything. You say Female Human DNA must have been sufficient to make him human but you do not know if that is the case at all** No, I do not. But neither do you know that it is not the case . Again, maybe God introduced Male DNA into Mary, who knows? I don’t but I am just saying don’t limit God. ** Again, I am not limiting God. I don’t know where you got this crazy notion. How many times do I have to clarify this? You also say you doubt Jesus is exempt from ordinary natural law and biological patterns, but the point is that Jesus is God and therefore he is exempt by anything he wants to be exempt to.**I have no idea what you mean by this. Jesus is fully human. He was conceived and was born, grew up, ate and slept, was tired and hungry and experienced human emotions. And even more wonderfully, he emptied himself of his divinity to do so. He did not cling to his equality with God, to quote St Paul, but accepted and endured the full consequences of being human. He was not God dressed up as a man, with his divinity always there to protect and save him. He laid himself open to fear, danger, darkness, loneliness, helplessness. He was vulnerable to physical violence and to temptation. He accepted the ultimate consequence of being human, that he would have to depend totally on another, his Father, to save him. He exempted himself from nothing that was a consequence of being human. **

 

[BRZ]

Eddie, Did Jesus not walk on water? Did Jesus not raise people from the dead? Did Jesus not turn water into wine? on and on, etc and etc. This is natural? Any human can do this? This goes alongside the natural order of things? I don’t think so.

 

[Eddie_D]

Eddie, Did Jesus not walk on water? Did Jesus not raise people from the dead? Did Jesus not turn water into wine? on and on, etc and etc. This is natural? Any human can do this? This goes alongside the natural order of things? I don’t think so.

You seem to be forgetting that he was also true God. Let me again state the doctrine of the incarnation: Jesus was true God and true man. You don’t have to understand how that is true, but as a Christian you have to accept that it is true.

 

[BRZ]

No, I am not forgetting anything. I know that Jesus was true man and true God. I find it funny that you are trying to turn this around on me. Or maybe you just aren’t getting at what I mean.

You said you doubt Jesus is exempt from Natural law, but he obviously is considering the miracles he did. How could he do miracles that defy the natural law, if he is not exempt from the natural law? You are not making any rational sense.

Yes, he is both true man and true God. I never said he wasn’t. You said Jesus could not defy natural law, but he did when he made his miracles. Jesus’ birth was a miracle so the fact is that his birth defies the natural law. So I have no idea what it is you are talking about.

 

[Eddie_D]

No, I am not forgetting anything. I know that Jesus was true man and true God. I find it funny that you are trying to turn this around on me. **I find it equally funny (and a bit sad) that you would think so. **

You said you doubt Jesus is exempt from Natural law, but he obviously is considering the miracles he did. How could he do miracles that defy the natural law, if he is not exempt from the natural law? You are not making any rational sense. I said that in his humanity, Jesus is not exempt from the consequences of being human. He did not use his divinity to protect or save himself. Were the apostles also exempt from natural law as it affected their humanity when they performed miracles?

Yes, he is both true man and true God. I never said he wasn’t.**I didn’t say you did: I just pointed out the consequences for Jesus of being truly human ** You said Jesus could not defy natural law, but he did when he made his miracles. I said that he chose not to exempt himself from the consequences of being humanJesus’ birth was a miracle so the fact is that his birth defies the natural law. **All human births are miracles in a way and many seem to defy the natural law. But a human child remains a human child. Why have you a problem with Jesus being truly human??**So I have no idea what it is you are talking about.Ditto.Now I’m off to bed. Goodnight and may God give you peace.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Eddie, I don’t really want to get into this anymore with you either but you did quite deliberately say:

**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? **

This is pure speculation and not supported by the Catholic Dogma of the Incarnation nor is it supported by our Catholic Christology. A true man perfect in every way but sin would have a biological makeup that requires a perfect Male’s DNA. You can’t go round and round in circles dodging the fact that you asserted that from a DNA perspective Jesus was SURELY female. That’s unwarranted conjecture. If you can’t admit to having said it when its very clear that you did or retract your position then its pointless to continue sincere and rational dialog with you.

James

 

[BRZ]

I don’t want to go into it anymore with Eddie D either. It is clear he is just playing word games.

 

[Church_Militant]

I never care much for “What if” scenarios.

Why wasn’t Jesus a woman?

Because God apparently chose to do things that way, especially since He had already foretold of the coming of the Messiah as a male.

This was all God’s volition, so whether we humans understand it, agree with it, or even discuss it, is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Topic exhausted. Thread closed.