Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

[AITB]

Ok, how can I ask this...I hope it's an ok question...

Most children are genetically related to both parents.

I understand about Jesus not being genetically related to Joseph because of being 'conceived by the Holy Spirit'.

But I thought he was genetically related to Mary.

I read something today - which evidently is what Henry Morris also believes - saying, in effect, that Jesus conception was entirely of the Holy Spirit.

Which would mean that although he grew as a baby inside Mary he was not genetically related to her either.

Is this the majority Christian view? Does anyone here know?

Perhaps it doesn't matter either way, theologically. But I kinda thought that Jesus being fully human was something to do with Mary being genetically his Mom. I realize that Jesus' conception and his nature of being fully man and fully God is probably too mysterious to understand much about. But I was surprised at what I read today and now I'm wondering if it's the majority Christian view, but I just never knew it.

With all due respect, I know that threads can get off on a tangent and I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has actual information on what is believed, rather than speculation. If there is any definite belief about it.

Thanks!

AITB

 

[Kiffin]

Hi AITB,

You are correct that Jesus inherited His flesh from Mary yet not her sin nature. He is the seed of the Woman not of man. There of course is much mystery in the Virgin Birth that I don't believe we humans can understand.

There is a danger in saying that Jesus did not inherit His body from Mary in that instead of denying His Deity we deny His humanity. The Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century stated in defense of both the Deity and Humanity of Christ,

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,

 

[The Galatian]

It would be a remarkable thing to have some of Jesus' tissue, wouldn't it? I'd sure like to see what the Y chromosome looked like.

I'm mostly joking here. My guess is that we'd end up as we did with the Shroud of Turin. "We just can't say for sure."

 

[HankD]

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
It would be a remarkable thing to have some of Jesus' tissue, wouldn't it? I'd sure like to see what the Y chromosome looked like.

I'm mostly joking here. My guess is that we'd end up as we did with the Shroud of Turin. "We just can't say for sure."

Galatian, a few years ago, there was a book called "Blood of Heaven" about an experiment done on a death row inmate in which they took DNA found on the Shroud of Turin and implanted it into the prisoner, evidently with supernatural results.

I didn't read it so I don't know anymore than that but it's supposed to be good.

I don't remember who wrote it but Chuck Colson raved about it on "Breakpoint".

 

[Helen]

Hi, otherHelen,

Perhaps the best response to this would be the necessity of establishing for the Jews the right Jesus has to the throne of David. This is done in the Gospels with the two genealogies.

Matthew concentrates on the legal right of Jesus to the throne by tracing Jesus' legal heritage back through his adoptive father, Joseph. Then, as now, adoption brought with it all the legal rights of a natural-born child. So Matthew shows that Jesus has the legal right to the throne of David.

But that was not enough, actually. Jewish bloodlines are traced through the mother, and Mary's BLOODline was traced via Luke, in his genealogy. This would have been completely unnecessary if Jesus did not have some biological genetics from Mary. But it was imperative for the sake of prophecy and God's true word for Jesus to have a human bloodline that was traceable. This is the reason God told Eve that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, why Abraham was told that from his line the Messiah would come, and why the Christ line is traced back to Adam. None of this would have meant anything if Jesus did not share Mary's human genetics.

Hope that helps.

 

[AITB]

Thanks, everyone

Helen, I am fairly sure that the reasons you gave are the ones which made me think Jesus was genetically related to Mary.

I searched for information yesterday and happened to find the article by Henry Morris.

(To be honest, most of what one finds, doing a search on the Virgin Birth are articles saying it didn't really happen so I was glad to find anything from a Christian point of view!)

Anyway I know I don't agree with him on some things but I really didn't 'target' him in doing this search, in any way.

If you have time could you look and see whether I misunderstood him to be saying Jesus was conceived without any genetic material from Mary being - used?

If I understood him rightly I'm surprised he would take what seems to be an unusual position, on this.

But, whatever...

AITB

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by AITB:
Thanks, everyone

Helen, I am fairly sure that the reasons you gave are the ones which made me think Jesus was genetically related to Mary.

I searched for information yesterday and happened to find the article by Henry Morris.

(To be honest, most of what one finds, doing a search on the Virgin Birth are articles saying it didn't really happen so I was glad to find anything from a Christian point of view!)

Anyway I know I don't agree with him on some things but I really didn't 'target' him in doing this search, in any way.

If you have time could you look and see whether I misunderstood him to be saying Jesus was conceived without any genetic material from Mary being - used?

If I understood him rightly I'm surprised he would take what seems to be an unusual position, on this.

But, whatever...

AITB

Hi,
I read the article. It's from a LONG time ago! Dr. Morris is a fine old man now and I have a ton of respect for him.

With that said, I don't always agree with what he says. I understand why he said what he did in the article, because Mary would have been subject to a genetic load, presumably, the same as any other human being and the Lamb of God was spotless.

However, the genealogy is such a major part of Biblical record, that I have to feel it is important! Genetically it might be supposed that the perfect genetic structure that God put into the conception was totally dominant over any effects of mutations in Mary's part...

I'm not going to try to pretend I know. I don't. Genetics seem to have been important as Jesus had to have the inherited right to sit on the Throne of David, and that comes through the mother. Would it all have been simply presumed?

I doubt that...

I know that Jesus was subject to temptations, meaning He was actually tempted at certain times. Can God Himself be tempted? I doubt that, too. This bespeaks a human nature, which is part of Christian doctrine anyway: 100% human and 100% God in one Man.

Just thinking out loud here, sort of. At the very least, Jesus partook of fallen flesh, if you will, in receiving nutrients from Mary's bloodstream while in utero.

Maybe part of the package of Christ destroying the power of sin started in the womb with the overcoming of Mary's genetic defects?

Excuse me while I think for a year or two, OK? You do come up with some of the most interesting material!

 

[ormond]

I think
Mary, Jesus and Holy Spirit = Jesus was dead (crazy, pain, evil).
(like Catholic!)

but
Heaven Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit = Jesus is life!
(but Jesus never touch to Mary any more)
Bible said!

amen!

[ August 01, 2002, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: ormond ]

 

[HankD]

More Scripture...

Hebrews 2:
11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham .
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Helen:

With that said, I don't always agree with what he says. I understand why he said what he did in the article, because Mary would have been subject to a genetic load, presumably, the same as any other human being and the Lamb of God was spotless.

However, the genealogy is such a major part of Biblical record, that I have to feel it is important! Genetically it might be supposed that the perfect genetic structure that God put into the conception was totally dominant over any effects of mutations in Mary's part...

Just thinking out loud here, sort of. At the very least, Jesus partook of fallen flesh, if you will, in receiving nutrients from Mary's bloodstream while in utero.

Maybe part of the package of Christ destroying the power of sin started in the womb with the overcoming of Mary's genetic defects?
[/QB]

I've heard this same claim from a couple of Baptist's that I know personally: that the Holy Spirit used no part of Mary in conceiving our Lord.

Your questions may be the key to understanding their faulty beliefs.

Considering that we are spirit and flesh, why do you make the assumption that our sinful nature is part of our physical genetic makeup?

 

[Kiffin]

Morris in the article stated,

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself.

This is often referred to as the "Celestial Flesh" theory. It was actually even taught by the great Anabaptist preacher Menno Simons. The Celestial Flesh view however rejects that Jesus was "made of woman". If taken to an extreme it could go into the very dangerous area of Gnosticism.

[ August 01, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Helen:
Excuse me while I think for a year or two, OK? You do come up with some of the most interesting material!

No problem!

I think that most Christians who think about such things at all see the sinlessness of Jesus requiring no human father but not no human mother; they see the 'sin nature' (as it were; I really don't like that translation

) as passed on by the father. So Jesus could be sinless and have a human mother, in that case. This theology might come from Romans 5 - "in Adam all died".

I think Henry Morris's (Morris' ?) teaching that the sin nature is passed on by both human parents so Jesus had to have no human parents genetically speaking, may be a minority Christian view.

(I know that differing on something like that doesn't make him a heretic

)

AITB

 

[Helen]

Considering that we are spirit and flesh, why do you make the assumption that our sinful nature is part of our physical genetic makeup?

It wasn't so much an assumption as thinking out loud and looking at it various ways. The one thing I am sure of was that Jesus was not only sinless, but the "spotless lamb". However, evidently He was not handsome in the world's eyes!

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Isaiah 53:2b

I know in Romans 8 we read that all creation is under bondage to decay. So this puts a physical picture, certainly, on the results of sin. In line with this, we know that there is a buildup of genetic load (the heritable accumulation of negative, or 'bad' mutations) in humans as well as other organisms...

Is this connected to sin nature per se? Maybe not. Maybe they simply are parallel routes, one physical and the other spiritual?

And what does God consider a 'spotless Lamb' where Jesus physical body was concerned?

AAGGGHHH

Please don't take my thinking out loud to be anything more than that! I'm pretty sure I disagree with Dr. Morris about the genetics, and I do so on the grounds of the importance of genealogies in prophecy and Israelite history. But I think I had better wait for heaven to get the rest of the story...

And patience is a virtue.

 

[The Galatian]

But that was not enough, actually. Jewish bloodlines are traced through the mother, and Mary's BLOODline was traced via Luke, in his genealogy.

The geneology in Luke says it traces Joseph's lineage, not Mary's.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

The actual text seems to agree with you, Galatian. However, the genealogy diverges immediately at the first father mentioned preceeding Joseph. Matthew says Jacob whereas Luke says Heli.

My textnotes (NIV) say that Luke traces bloodline through Mary. I am interested in how this is resolved as well.

 

[The Galatian]

Elisabeth and Mary were cousins, and it is said that she was a "daughter of Aaron" (i.e. descended from the Levite Aaron) But that is not the geneology given in Luke. Elisabeth's husband, Zacharias, was also of the lineage of Aaron; his father Abijah was a descendant of the Aaronites who fought with David against Saul.

I see no Scriptural foundation for the assertion that the genology of Joseph given in Luke is actually that of Mary.

I suppose that the contradiction is a copying error, or possibly a different geneology inserted by mistake.

The New Compact Bible Dictionary (Billy Graham Crusade Edition) says that Heli was the father of Joseph, or possibly of Mary. But it offers no justification, scriptural or otherwise, for that alternative.

Edit to correct accidentally deleted material

[ August 02, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But that was not enough, actually. Jewish bloodlines are traced through the mother, and Mary's BLOODline was traced via Luke, in his genealogy.

The geneology in Luke says it traces Joseph's lineage, not Mary's.</font>[/QUOTE]You are wrong, Galatian. The minute Luke states "as it was supposed" regarding Joseph being the father, he is showing that he is reverting to Mary's bloodline. Heli was Joseph's father-in-law. Because Joseph was not Jesus' father, Joseph's family would have refused to include Mary in their family unit. Period. No questions. No discussion. She was out. By aligning himself with her as her husband anyway, Joseph then would have become part of HER family by default.

The first time -- several years ago -- when you and I argued about these genealogies on another forum, I didn't know this. However a little study was all that was needed to know that Joseph would have been disinherited by his own family for marrying Mary in her condition. So there is no doubt that Luke is tracing Mary's bloodline when he uses to the phrase "as it was supposed" referring to Joseph being the father.

This may very well have been an addition reason they did not go back to their hometown but to Galilee instead to raise the child Jesus. No one knew them there.

Matthew traces Joseph's lineage as a legal issue. However both of the men who trace the two lineages make it a point to show that Jesus was born of a virgin and that Joseph did not have part in the conception. Matthew also makes it a point to show that Joseph was a righteous man, and this gives credence to his lineage of Joseph regarding it being valid for purposes of the legitimacy of Christ on the Throne of David.

You have been repeating the same arguments for years now. I studied, read, and learned some more. I knew before you were wrong. Now I know WHY you are wrong. Luke is, indeed, Mary's lineage.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Thanks Helen.

 

[ormond]

Amen Helen!

[ August 02, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: ormond ]