Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Plain Old Bill, Dec 2, 2004.
I heard this discussion on the radio the other day. What do you think?
Difficult one...I don't know. Menno Simons didn't think so.
I think it's irrelevant to the Gospel and salvation. Interesting for discussion, to be sure, but let's not make doctrine out of it, which would result in taking the focus off the message of the Gospel.
She was His physical mother, so I would say He would have had gotten the usual half of His genes from Her. It's the other half that is interesting to speculate about.
Maybe that's one reason why Jesus came before folks knew about that stuff.
If Mary had the normal femal gene complement, Jesus could conceivably have gotten most of the genes from Mary and doubled them, but from where would he get the x gene to become male?
If God created the x gene for Jesus by means of a miracle, and that seems to be the only choice, I wonder what patterns of inheritance would have been revealed by studying it?
The Bible calls Mary the mother of Jesus and we know that she conceived Him (though not in the normal way). So Jesus had to have Mary's DNA or he would not be totally human. If Jesus did not have human DNA, he would not have been human.
The part about the HS causing the conception is the part we can't understand or dissect, imo. It just shows us that Jesus was fully man and fully God.
I don't believe He did. She only carried Him and raised Him. God doesn't need natural means to make it happen.
So how was Jesus human? It is absolutely essential that Jesus have human DNA to be human.
You don't think God can create DNA without the help of Mary's? I'm asking. I haven't studied the issue at all.
How can Jesus be made up of Mary's DNA and not carry that sin nature?
Most Baptists believe that the sin nature is passed on from the male DNA. Hence the need for a "virgin birth" where the MALE DNA was not implanted, but the Spirit of God planted HIS seed to make the other half of the DNA.
So you have the DNA from Mary (no sin nature) and that of the Spirit (no sin nature). Hence the perfect and sinless GOD-MAN.
I think the fact that the Bible tells Mary she will be the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is conceived in her womb, and that in Heb 2 and elsewhere it clearly tells us Jesus was a man like us, it is only logical to conclude Jesus had Mary's DNA. For God to create some DNA apart from Mary seems sneaky and very much not like God, especially when He chooses Mary and tells her she will conceive. Then Jesus would not really be Mary's son at all.
Jesus did not get Mary's sin nature because he also had God's nature and was God before he was incarnated. Maybe the God nature overrides the sin nature in the DNA, or maybe sin nature is not in DNA.
What do you think of Hebrews 10:5
I don't know that I believe the thing about the sin gene being only in the male. Jesus also could and would be completely human in the same sense as Adam & Eve were, they were created completely human. To believe in the sin gene would make our sinful condition biological and could lead to the RC doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. What do you all think about the above verse and thoughts.
For what it's worth - Jesus had to be a son of David to qualify for the covenant Kingdom. Mary was an offspring of David, through which the Messiah was born. He had her DNA.
It would be impossible for us to determine w/o having samples from each of them.
Jesus had all the physical characteristics of a typical Jewish male of the time, except he didn't sin, and was quite physically fit and strong. ( Carpentry at the time involved mucho physical labor. and Jesus physically threw a whole gang of merchants from the temple.) Evidently He was of average stature and facial appearance as Isaiah said there was nothing about His appearance to make His people love Him.
As others have said, He was both wholly man and wholly God.
This explains precisely why I have always believed that Jesus had Divine Blood. Sin nature is inherited from humankind.
So the Divine Blood issue goes right along with this DNA issue. (sigh)
We are, after all, talking about the Creator here. The One Who Created EVERYTHING! Even the first human.
Jeus was the Seed of Woman (not man). That is Bible and seems sufficient. In that way alone could He be 100% man.
If a fully fertilized embryo were dropped into Mary's womb, she would have been the carrier of God. But not a man.
It was her embryo (with 1/2 the DNA of course) and God the Spirit's sperm cell (with the other 1/2 DNA needed to form a fully God/fully human incarnate God.
Anything less will lead us into the heresy of Arianism. They fought this out centuries ago!
Who created the first man, was he completely man?
If God created the first man, did He not create the body of the Christ Child? What about the verse in Hebrews 10:5, does it mean anything to this discussion. If it does how does it lead to heresy?
I reiterate what I said earlier. The makeup of Jesus' DNA is irrelevant to the Gospel and salvation. Interesting for discussion, to be sure, but let's not make doctrine out of it, which would result in taking the focus off the message of the Gospel.
I agree John, just wondering what relation people feel the verse in Hebrews has to do with the subject.