What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Jesus genetically related to Mary?

Iconoclast said:
We are born dead in sin from Adam, Jesus is not.
Click to expand...
That is because Mary was immaculately conceived.
Jesus, in his human nature, is related to Adam in the same way we are all related to Adam. In his humannature he is a decendant of Adam just as we are.
 
Mungo said:
That is because Mary was immaculately conceived.
Jesus, in his human nature, is related to Adam in the same way we are all related to Adam. In his humannature he is a decendant of Adam just as we are.
Click to expand...
That is blasphemy. Mary was a sinner in need of a savior.
Jesus did not have sinful human flesh nature as we do.
This is why people flee the false roman teaching with it's fables and stories and just study the bible instead.
 
Please keep to the topic and not debate Catholic beliefs.
 
Mungo said:
The scriptures I gave are definitive proof.

Add to those:
Lk 1:31
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus”
By any normal interpretation conceive means to become pregnant with material from the mother.
It doesn't say an embryo will be implanted in your womb.

Gen 22;18
“and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."
We are blessed through Christ. So he had to be a descendant of Abraham.

Rom 9:4-5
“They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.
Again, if Christ was a brand new creation he could not have been an Israelite according to the flesh.
Gal 4:4
“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law”
The Greek for ‘born’ here is gemenenon, Strong 1096:
“A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being),…”
The KJV translates it as made.
Again this implies that Jesus body is generated (made) from Mary.

Lk 1:32
“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David”.
If Christ was a brand new creation he could not have descended from David and therefore David could not be called his father and he would have no legitimate claim to the throne of David. God’s promise to David (2Sam 7:16) would have been broken:
“And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.”
Click to expand...
Hi Mungo

If all of those Scriptures make that definitive claim for you, then I think you should go with that understanding. Let every man's yes, be yes and no, be no. Honestly, other than the first argument as to 'what' exactly conceive meant in ancient Israel, I don't find that the other verse applications even address the subject of 'who' Jesus came to be implanted in Mary's womb:

συλλήψῃTo clasp, i.e., seize (arrest, capture); specially, to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication, to aid

Could have meant 'to aid' also, according to Strong's. And yes, he was born of Mary. I think Joseph was there to witness his birth and I'm pretty sure he saw the baby come from his wife's birth canal. Therefore...born. Doesn't however make any claim as to whether or not he had any of his mother's DNA.

So, as I've said, if it works for you, that's fine. I believe that Jesus was purer human DNA and his body was formed fully and completely by his Father, just as he did with the 'first Adam'. Only Jesus' body was made as a zygote which when implanted in Mary's womb, grew into a natural born child, just like any of the billions and billions who have gone before. The only difference is his genetic makeup.

Was there any of Joseph's or Mary's DNA in the body of Jesus?

God bless,
Ted
 
SyrianMariam said:
This makes the most sense to me
Click to expand...
Hi again SyrianMariam

As I've been clear, there is no definitive proof either way from the Scriptures. My understanding is based on the sinlessness of Jesus. Now that sinlessness was first passed down through Adam, but that doesn't mean that from there it was always through the male sperm/seed. Once the first generation from Adam were born, then the women had the 'sin seed' also, in the genetic makeup of her egg, or so I would think.

So, since I believe that Jesus was sinless himself, and I absolutely deny that there is a single shred of evidence to support that Mary was somehow sinless through some fairy tale of her own conception being 'immaculate', I'm inclined to believe that the Son of God, has no 'mother' to speak of, as far as blood related genealogy. The God I know is able to do the impossible and the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb is likely just another of those 'impossible' things that He's done for our salvation. Praise God!

God bless,
Ted
 
Hi SyrianMariam

Most don't understand what's going on here with the Catholic brand of christian faith. You see, they believe just as I do, that Mary wouldn't have been sinless and, therefore, couldn't have conceived a sinless child, if the conception did involve one of Mary's eggs and the Holy Spirit just somehow implanted one of her eggs. So, they come up with this 'theologically vapid idea' that ding, ding, ding! Mary had to be born by immaculate conception also and that would have broken the chain of sin that we believe, just like Miamited, she would have brought forth from her egg. Of course, if her conception were the same as they're making out Jesus's to be, then Mary would have also been a part of her mother's egg...ding, ding, ding! which would have carried sin to Mary herself.

But that's how they want to understand it. And if that's how they see it...who am I to deny them their belief? But as I've said, it all boils down to the same issue with me. I can't really justify that Jesus would have been sinless if a part of Mary were used for his beginning. I believe that the Holy Spirit came over Mary and implanted a fully functioning zygote in Mary's womb, at a time when she was likely fertile, although, with God, that wouldn't have been necessary. That zyote then attached itself to Mary's uterine wall the way that every fertilized egg in a woman does most generally. I mean, I really don't know the workings of the miracle that makes only the fertilized eggs to attach to a woman's uterus, but that's the point at which I believe Jesus came to be in Mary's uterus.

But again, there is no definitive proof given us and, therefore, I know it is not a salvation issue whether one believes either form.

God bless,
Ted
 
miamited said:
Hi SyrianMariam


But that's how they want to understand it. And if that's how they see it...who am I to deny them their belief? But as I've said, it all boils down to the same issue with me. I can't really justify that Jesus would have been sinless if a part of Mary were used for his beginning. I believe that the Holy Spirit came over Mary and implanted a fully functioning zygote in Mary's womb, at a time when she was likely fertile, although, with God, that wouldn't have been necessary. That zyote then attached itself to Mary's uterine wall the way that every fertilized egg in a woman does most generally. I mean, I really don't know the workings of the miracle that makes only the fertilized eggs to attach to a woman's uterus, but that's the point at which I believe Jesus came to be in Mary's uterus.

But again, there is no definitive proof given us and, therefore, I know it is not a salvation issue whether one believes either form.

God bless,
Ted
Click to expand...
And yet, there are many OT prophecies and promises from God that the Messiah would be of the line of David. If Jesus isn't actually physically from the line of David, if he doesn't have Mary's DNA, then those prophecies and promises are false, and it would be deceptive of God to make it appear to be the case when it actually wasn't. God could just as easily prevent any sinful nature from passing on to Jesus, if that needed to be the case. A strong possibility is that a case can be made that the sin nature is passed down through the father, not the mother.
 
miamited said:
Hi SyrianMariam

Most don't understand what's going on here with the Catholic brand of christian faith. You see, they believe just as I do, that Mary wouldn't have been sinless and, therefore, couldn't have conceived a sinless child, if the conception did involve one of Mary's eggs and the Holy Spirit just somehow implanted one of her eggs. So, they come up with this 'theologically vapid idea' that ding, ding, ding! Mary had to be born by immaculate conception also and that would have broken the chain of sin that we believe, just like Miamited, she would have brought forth from her egg. Of course, if her conception were the same as they're making out Jesus's to be, then Mary would have also been a part of her mother's egg...ding, ding, ding! which would have carried sin to Mary herself.
Click to expand...
As I warned already, please do not debate Catholic beliefs.
 
Free said:
If Jesus isn't actually physically from the line of David, if he doesn't have Mary's DNA, then those prophecies and promises are false, and it would be deceptive of God to make it appear to be the case when it actually wasn't.
Click to expand...
Hi Free

I'm not sold on the idea that only some DNA base, qualifies one to be in the 'line of' as regards a newborn child. Joseph was a 'in the line' of David and Mary was also 'in the line' of David. Therefore, Jesus was born in the line and the house of David.

God bless,
Ted
 
SyrianMariam said:
Jesus was borne by Mary, but he was concieved by the Holy Spirit within Mary. Jesus is not genetically related to Joseph, is he genetically related to Mary?
Click to expand...
The same question has come to my mind on occasion. If someone forced me to guess then I guess Mary's egg was not used.
Points to possibly consider:
Deism is the belief that the earth operates on its own and that is the default for humans when pondering a question like this.
There is debate as to whether our soul comes from our parents or from God.
God has imputted a sin nature to every human since Adam.
God can make sons of Abramham from stones so Jewish genetics doesn't seem to be a limitation.

Hmmm, I don't know and I don't think there is scripture or logic to prove it either way.
 
miamited said:
Hi Mungo

If all of those Scriptures make that definitive claim for you, then I think you should go with that understanding. Let every man's yes, be yes and no, be no. Honestly, other than the first argument as to 'what' exactly conceive meant in ancient Israel, I don't find that the other verse applications even address the subject of 'who' Jesus came to be implanted in Mary's womb:

συλλήψῃTo clasp, i.e., seize (arrest, capture); specially, to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication, to aid

Could have meant 'to aid' also, according to Strong's. And yes, he was born of Mary. I think Joseph was there to witness his birth and I'm pretty sure he saw the baby come from his wife's birth canal. Therefore...born. Doesn't however make any claim as to whether or not he had any of his mother's DNA.

So, as I've said, if it works for you, that's fine. I believe that Jesus was purer human DNA and his body was formed fully and completely by his Father, just as he did with the 'first Adam'. Only Jesus' body was made as a zygote which when implanted in Mary's womb, grew into a natural born child, just like any of the billions and billions who have gone before. The only difference is his genetic makeup.

Was there any of Joseph's or Mary's DNA in the body of Jesus?

God bless,
Ted
Click to expand...
That may be your opinion but you have no scripture to support it.
What do I believe - your opinion or scripture?
 
miamited said:
Hi again SyrianMariam

As I've been clear, there is no definitive proof either way from the Scriptures. My understanding is based on the sinlessness of Jesus. Now that sinlessness was first passed down through Adam, but that doesn't mean that from there it was always through the male sperm/seed. Once the first generation from Adam were born, then the women had the 'sin seed' also, in the genetic makeup of her egg, or so I would think.

So, since I believe that Jesus was sinless himself, and I absolutely deny that there is a single shred of evidence to support that Mary was somehow sinless through some fairy tale of her own conception being 'immaculate', I'm inclined to believe that the Son of God, has no 'mother' to speak of, as far as blood related genealogy. The God I know is able to do the impossible and the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb is likely just another of those 'impossible' things that He's done for our salvation. Praise God!

God bless,
Ted
Click to expand...
If you want to understand the scriptural support for the Imnaculate Conception of Mary rather that just your opinion about it - see Understanding Mary- Immaculate Conception
 
miamited said:
Hi SyrianMariam

Most don't understand what's going on here with the Catholic brand of christian faith. You see, they believe just as I do, that Mary wouldn't have been sinless and, therefore, couldn't have conceived a sinless child, if the conception did involve one of Mary's eggs and the Holy Spirit just somehow implanted one of her eggs. So, they come up with this 'theologically vapid idea' that ding, ding, ding! Mary had to be born by immaculate conception also and that would have broken the chain of sin that we believe, just like Miamited, she would have brought forth from her egg. Of course, if her conception were the same as they're making out Jesus's to be, then Mary would have also been a part of her mother's egg...ding, ding, ding! which would have carried sin to Mary herself.

But that's how they want to understand it. And if that's how they see it...who am I to deny them their belief? But as I've said, it all boils down to the same issue with me. I can't really justify that Jesus would have been sinless if a part of Mary were used for his beginning. I believe that the Holy Spirit came over Mary and implanted a fully functioning zygote in Mary's womb, at a time when she was likely fertile, although, with God, that wouldn't have been necessary. That zyote then attached itself to Mary's uterine wall the way that every fertilized egg in a woman does most generally. I mean, I really don't know the workings of the miracle that makes only the fertilized eggs to attach to a woman's uterus, but that's the point at which I believe Jesus came to be in Mary's uterus.

But again, there is no definitive proof given us and, therefore, I know it is not a salvation issue whether one believes either form.

God bless,
Ted
Click to expand...

Stop giving a totally false version of what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
Free said:
And yet, there are many OT prophecies and promises from God that the Messiah would be of the line of David. If Jesus isn't actually physically from the line of David, if he doesn't have Mary's DNA, then those prophecies and promises are false, and it would be deceptive of God to make it appear to be the case when it actually wasn't. God could just as easily prevent any sinful nature from passing on to Jesus, if that needed to be the case. A strong possibility is that a case can be made that the sin nature is passed down through the father, not the mother.
Click to expand...
Why does he have to be descended from a man? Why is that important? What is so special about David?
 
Riven said:
The female Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Wisdom is equated with the Holy Spirit and both are considered to be feminine. Hence one understands how in early Christian tradition Christ is so often considered to be the child of mother Sophia or the Holy Spirit. In essence, both traditions express the same concept.
 
Mungo said:
Adam was a created being. You are using Son in a different sens to that which we are considering - i.e. genetic sonship.
.
Click to expand...
When pondering the body of Adam and the body of Jesus, the expression “more alike than different” would seem to apply.

[PS. I was quoting from LUKE in how He described the relationship between Seth and Adam, and Adam and God.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top