DNA and Christ's Birth

[cradleGO]

Being "biologically" of David's line would mean carrying the sin of Adam. The frailties wrought by the Fall are embedded in the DNA of both male and female. The only way Jesus could be clear of the physical consequences of the Fall was to possess no DNA descended from Adam.

God could easily fully create and place a zygote into Mary. "Biological" descendancy from David was not necessary to fulfill either law or prophesy, only the recognition of the family line. Jesus was recognized as also being of Joseph's family lineage, remember.

No. The Orthodox view of original sin 1. is not embedded in DNA (silly concept), but 2. is an expression of separation from God with the result that humanity suffers death. By being put out of Eden, mankind must suffer death. Jesus was fully man and fully God, so He wasn't separated from God.

Suggesting that the Holy Spirit placed a zygote (fertilized egg) into Mary is heresy. Jesus was the son of Mary. Jesus was of her flesh. The only issue is where the Holy Spirit obtained the y-DNA (and the other complement of DNA) for Mary's egg to be fertilized. I have suggested that using Joseph's shed DNA would have several advantages, without enumerating them. I did this to show that 1. it might of happened that way, and 2. Jesus' Incarnation (putting on flesh) is/was consistent with our understanding of human conception, even though we humans have no idea how Mary's egg was fertilized.

Mary made the choice (she had the choice) of being part of Jesus' Incarnation. She wasn't a surrogate. If that were the case, then it would change God's relationship to mankind fundamentally.

The Orthodox Doctrine of Original Sin: A Comprehensive Treatment

The doctrine of original sin presently lacks clarity throughout Christendom. Orthodoxy as of late is no exception to this, with many doubting that Orthodox have a consensus on original sin that is …

orthodoxchristiantheology.com

 

[Qubit]

No. The Orthodox view of original sin 1. is not embedded in DNA (silly concept)

It is far from a 'silly concept'. Sin has everything to do with DNA.

The entire Bible is a story of how the DNA of all life on the planet was corrupted and how it will be salvaged one day. It is a vital part of understanding the meaning of life.

The most intimate details of Biology are right there in front of everyone's faces. From Human Anatomy to Cell Biology, to Genetic Sequences, to the very Atoms and Particles that make up reality.

Scripture even teaches where Soul and Spirit are divided so that it can be understood, measured and quantified.

...even though we humans have no idea how Mary's egg was fertilized.

Speak for yourself. The exact process by which it was done is laid out in the rituals of the Old Testament, especially Yom Kippur. I have studied this topic for decades and have made several movies and websites about it over the years.

A lot of progress has been made in these areas, but the average Christian is not keeping up because of old Church dogmas, traditions and superstitions. It is an absolute tragedy.

 

[The Liturgist]

God took flesh from Adam and formed Eve. There was only paternal DNA available yet God had no problem creating a woman from a man's flesh. Thus there is really no issue with God taking only maternal DNA and forming a man's flesh. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David, so Jesus was already biologically of David's line.

Also there are some animals which can reproduce without both male or female DNA, which was a plot point in Jurassic Park. I am certainly not daring to suggest that is what happened here, only pointing out another example of God writing the rules according to His desired outcome.

 

[The Liturgist]

No. The flesh Christ took on in Mary's womb was healed at the instant of His conception. If it wasn't "our" flesh that He assumed then it wasn't "our" flesh that He took into death and raised to new life.

Indeed, there is a Christological principle that what was not assumed was not redeemed.

 

[cradleGO]

God took flesh from Adam and formed Eve. There was only paternal DNA available yet God had no problem creating a woman from a man's flesh. Thus there is really no issue with God taking only maternal DNA and forming a man's flesh. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David, so Jesus was already biologically of David's line.

Not true. Men have both a Y (male) and an X (female) chromosome. So, the Genesis story is entirely possible. It is biologically possible.
My theory is that God works within the physical (and biological) rules he set for this dimension. It is not hocus-pocus - as some atheists might say - but 'simple' physics - it is simply physics - we humans do know yet know.
Yes, "Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David...." I am suggesting that He could have been biologically Joseph's son.

 

[Qubit]

In case you are interested @cradleGO ...

 

[cradleGO]

It is far from a 'silly concept'. Sin has everything to do with DNA.

The entire Bible is a story of how the DNA of all life on the planet was corrupted and how it will be salvaged one day. It is a vital part of understanding the meaning of life.

The most intimate details of Biology are right there in front of everyone's faces. From Human Anatomy to Cell Biology, to Genetic Sequences, to the very Atoms and Particles that make up reality.

Scripture even teaches where Soul and Spirit are divided so that it can be understood, measured and quantified.



Speak for yourself. The exact process by which it was done is laid out in the rituals of the Old Testament, especially Yom Kippur. I have studied this topic for decades and have made several movies and websites about it over the years.

A lot of progress has been made in these areas, but the average Christian is not keeping up because of old Church dogmas, traditions and superstitions. It is an absolute tragedy.

Yes it is silly that original sin is attached to human DNA. Get a billionaire to put money into finding it.
Keep in mind that Orthodox Christians do not have the same concept of original sin as protestants and Catholics.
Never heard tell that Watson and Crick got the nature of the DNA molecule from Holy Scriptures.

Where we might agree is that in my view God works within the physical laws of this physical dimension. Things that appear to our unlearned minds as miracles are 'just" physics we do not know yet.

That the Bible has the full concept of this physical dimension is one thing. Humans using this info to push science forward is quite another. It is like Indians (sub-continent) complaining that someone there discovered this or that mathematical proof before someone in the West. It may be notable, but if the discovery in the West drove human learning, then what happened in India is a mere curiosity.

 

[cradleGO]

In case you are interested @cradleGO ...

Just sampled it - not viewing 3 + hours. This would only be impressive if this study shows physics we do not know yet. Bring that out. Is string theory solid or nah? What are the basics of the atoms? (I do not know advanced physics)
Use your method and settle the open issues in advanced physics. Then submit these to peer reviewed physics journals and see what they say. Good luck with that.

 

[cradleGO]

Just sampled it - not viewing 3 + hours. This would only be impressive if this study shows physics we do not know yet. Bring that out. Is string theory solid or nah? What are the basics of the atoms? (I do not know advanced physics)
Use your method and settle the open issues in advanced physics. Then submit these to peer reviewed physics journals and see what they say. Good luck with that.

And once again, the concept that the Holy Spirit implanted a zygote (fertilized egg) in Mary is heresy.

 

[Qubit]

Just sampled it - not viewing 3 + hours.

I get it.

Just an FYI... The movie is not 'click bait', nor is it entertainment. It is for the serious Student that is looking for difficult to obtain information. The fact that you brushed it off so quickly is very telling.

This would only be impressive if this study shows physics we do not know yet.

My previous video regarding Ezekiel's Wheels covering what you mentioned was recently deleted. There is a reason why Christians are still on the Milk. The most sought-after answers are hidden from them via constant censorship.

You have no idea how fortunate you are to have received the link I provided. You have no appreciation whatsoever for the years of research and hours of work that went into making it, nor of the numerous bright individuals that helped. Typical, but not surprising.

Bring that out.

I have re-edited the Ezekiel's Wheels video, and I am about to re-publish it. Who knows how long it will stay up.

Is string theory solid or nah?

There is ample evidence in Scripture to show that String Theory is valid.

What are the basics of the atoms? (I do not know advanced physics)

Study Ezekiel's Wheels. They were a vision of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

The word 'Amber' is where we get the word 'Electron'...

Ezekiel 1:4
"And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire."

The 'Eyes' represent Electrons. The 'Rings' represent Electron Orbitals or Shells. A 'Wheel Within a Wheel' represents two Shells (e.g. Carbon, Nitrogen Oxygen). Ezekiel was shown chemical elements of Life.

The generic construct of an Atom is a Trinity.

Father: Neutron
Word: Proton
Holy Ghost: Electron

In fact, the word 'Godhead' in the KJV is synonymous with the word Atom. The 'invisible things' (e.g. Strings) are clearly seen via the things that are made (Atoms)...

Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

John 3:16 describes Beta Decay.

Use your method and settle the open issues in advanced physics.

I already have, though that was not my intention.

Then submit these to peer reviewed physics journals and see what they say.

I am not interested in fame, acknowledgement, monetary gain, etc. I try and stay as anonymous as I can.

 

[Qubit]

And once again, the concept that the Holy Spirit implanted a zygote (fertilized egg) in Mary is heresy.

See? You assumed something that is not even true. That is *not* what the video teaches. You are being deceitful. I have zero patience for that.

Whatever @cradleGO . I am not going to waste any more time with you.

 

[cradleGO]

See? You assumed something that is not even true. That is *not* what the video teaches. You are being deceitful. I have zero patience for that.

Whatever @cradleGO . I am not going to waste any more time with you.

Your video has zygote in the title. It couldn't have any special significance if it doesn't pertain to the Incarnation. Who is being deceitful?

 

[FireDragon76]

How do we "know" that Jesus had Mary's DNA? How can we be sure that Jesus was not implanted as a zygote into Mary's womb? If God could create a sperm cell, He could just as well have created a zygote.

Jesus' humanity comes from Mary and wasn't a special creation, that much is clear from Christian orthodoxy. St. Paul is clear that Jesus' was fully human on account of that (Gal 4:4).

Beyond that, I think the attempt to explain the Incarnation in terms of biology is misguided and a category error.

 

[RDKirk]

Jesus' humanity comes from Mary and wasn't a special creation, that much is clear from Christian orthodoxy. St. Paul is clear that Jesus' was fully human on account of that (Gal 4:4).

Beyond that, I think the attempt to explain the Incarnation in terms of biology is misguided and a category error.

That's really only emphasizing Jesus' material characteristic. Implanting a fertilized embryo into a woman (which could be a fertilized embryo from any other two people) would still be "born of a woman."

 

[FireDragon76]

That's really only emphasizing Jesus' material characteristic. Implanting a fertilized embryo into a woman (which could be a fertilized embryo from any other two people) would still be "born of a woman."

Would Jesus be truly and fully human, in that case? The notion that his human nature, down to its material substance, wouldn't have to be identical to ours, seems to smack of docetism.

 

[RDKirk]

Would Jesus be truly and fully human, in that case? The notion that his human nature, down to its material substance, wouldn't have to be identical to ours, seems to smack of docetism.

Docetism denies the materiality of Jesus' substance.

Was Adam not fully man? If God created another Adam, would that second Adam not be fully man?

BTW, I use "man" here rather than "human" because "human" involves a number of philosophical issues that are not germane in many ways.

 

[FireDragon76]

Docetism denies the materiality of Jesus' substance.

It could insinuate that his humanity was illusory, which is the actual substance of the Docetist Christology. It also implies a nominalist metaphysics that wouldn't make real Christ's union with humanity, something that is a cornerstone of orthodox Christological traditions. It would be like saying he's human only by virtue of being named as such.

Was Adam not fully man? If God created another Adam, would that second Adam not be fully man?

Some medieval theologians actually thought Adam could have emerged through a process of spontaneous generation, compatible with how Aristotle saw the origin of life. They didn't understand the first chapters of Genesis in necessarily literal terms.

There are no serious theologians in any mainline church, Catholic or Protestant, that think we can extract a biological theory of the origins of Jesus Christ's humanity from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. That's why I said it's a category confusion, and needless speculation.

 

[RDKirk]

It could insinuate that his humanity was illusory, which is the actual substance of the Docetist Christology.

No, it doesn't. God can make a rock, say it's a rock, and it's therefore a rock. If he makes another rock and calls that one also a rock, the second rock is still a rock even if it's not chipped off the first rock.

It also implies a nominalist metaphysics that wouldn't make real Christ's union with humanity, something that is a cornerstone of orthodox Christological traditions. It would be like saying he's human only by virtue of being named as such.

That's the problem with the word "human." In these modern times it evokes too many philosophical presumptions that I doubt have any significance to God. If God defines it, then that's what it is. The scriptural definitions don't really go deeper than "corruptible material being," "incorruptible material being" and "spiritual being." Men have created all kinds of corollary characteristics...but those are spurious.

Some medieval theologians actually thought Adam could have emerged through a process of spontaneous generation, compatible with how Aristotle saw the origin of life. They didn't understand the first chapters of Genesis in necessarily literal terms.

There are no serious theologians in any mainline church, Catholic or Protestant, that think we can extract a biological theory of the origins of Jesus Christ's humanity from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. That's why I said it's a category confusion, and needless speculation.

I would agree with the last. My point is that it's not a "fact" that Mary contributed half of Jesus' DNA.

 

[cradleGO]

(I haven't learned how to pull quotes.)
To the "[do not] think we can extract a biological theory of the origins of Jesus Christ's humanity from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth." My premise is that the Holy Spirit using the shed DNA of Joseph in the Incarnation is wholly within our understanding of biology, even if we currently cannot duplicate the process, nor know each step/technique. My topic was to speculate within the bounds of Orthodox Christianity. Nothing is diminished in our Christian belief if Joseph's shed DNA was used to form the male (and complementary) DNA of Jesus. In fact, it makes some passages have more than one meaning. I'm having some intellectual fun, but not at anyone's expense. (I tend to think that is what happened, although if it didn't, so be it.)

To the "not a "fact" that Mary contributed half of Jesus' DNA." If Jesus is not of her flesh, then there are big problems. Firstly, why was she selected? It could be any female. Mary's place in the Incarnation is greatly diminished. Makes her a surrogate, when she is perfectly able to provide not just the womb, but her egg. Bad! Next, the concept that Jesus is fully man and fully God is greatly diminished. Given that it is DNA zygote as you say, what is the connection to our world/our reality/the lineage from Adam? And it would be heresy. So, there's that.

I started another post here that posits that God uses His physical laws in our realm. I believe that. What we see as miracles is just physics we do not yet know. The above is a concept that fits this posit.

 

[RDKirk]

To the "not a "fact" that Mary contributed half of Jesus' DNA." If Jesus is not of her flesh, then there are big problems. Firstly, why was she selected? It could be any female.

Yes, it could have been any female in the Davidic line, just to stay in line with prophesy. You haven't proven that it had to have been Mary. Except maybe she was the only woman in the Davidic line was the right age in the right circumstance at the right time.

Mary's place in the Incarnation is greatly diminished. Makes her a surrogate, when she is perfectly able to provide not just the womb, but her egg. Bad!

Why would it be bad if Mary were merely a surrogate?

Next, the concept that Jesus is fully man and fully God is greatly diminished. Given that it is DNA zygote as you say, what is the connection to our world/our reality/the lineage from Adam? And it would be heresy. So, there's that.

No, it's not greatly diminished at all. Adam was fully man, and there is no indication that "fully man" means anything more than being certainly flesh. Jesus is considered a "second Adam," after all.

Everything you're talking about is philosophical corollary that men have devised over time to "fill in" things they have thought scripture forgot to reveal.