# Jesus' DNA



## KMK

Last night, after we were studying Q #21 (of Spurgeon's catechism) which says:



> How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> 
> A Christ, the Son of God, became man by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, *being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, and born of her*, yet without sin.



My son asked if Jesus carried Mary's DNA. In other words,, did he look like her? Did he have a similar personality? (Obviously he had none of Joseph's DNA)

Is this what the Puritans had in mind when they used words like 'conceived' and 'substance'?

Belgic Article 18:


> The Son took the "form of a servant" and was made in the "likeness of man,"^33 truly assuming a real human nature, with all its weaknesses, except for sin; being *conceived* in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, without male participation.



WCF 8:2:



> II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: *being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.* So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.


----------



## MLCOPE2

If Jesus carried only Mary's dna then wouldn't you almost have to conclude that Jesus was a clone of Mary? Or did the Holy Spirit implant some sort of divine dna at conception?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:29[/bible]

Without authoritative Word (i.e. Biblical revelation) on the subject any answer is only speculation. So your guess is as good as mine. 

But what a intelligent question. It shows he is really thinking about what you all are studying. Good for him!


----------



## Mushroom

Maybe a question like this is one reason that God determined 'the fullness of time' to occur before man had the scientific understanding and ability to delve into such things.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

From a scientific perspective, this is an interesting question. 

It is impossible for Him to have ONLY Mary's DNA, because then He would indeed be a clone of Mary - something that is impossible since He was a man. That being the case, and given what the Bible and the Confessions teach, He must have been made of Mary's DNA plus DNA supernaturally given when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Since He was a man, His X chromosome 
+ 22 others came from Mary, and His Y chromosome + 22 others (XY = male, XX = female) were given to Him supernaturally. In other words, He had Mary's X chromosome along with her other 22 chromosomes, and He also had a Y chromosome + 22 other chromosomes given by God for a full diploid compliment of 46, which is the normal number for humans. 

Since He is referred to as the "second Adam" on the basis of being without original sin, I wonder if God gave Him the same 23 chromosomes (22 + Y) He gave to Adam? 

I'm not saying sin is somehow programmed into our DNA or that Jesus was anything less than 100% God, but it is interesting to consider what genetic material God used to form the physical, human aspect of Jesus.


----------



## OPC'n

ColdSilverMoon said:


> From a scientific perspective, this is an interesting question.
> 
> It is impossible for Him to have ONLY Mary's DNA, because then He would indeed be a clone of Mary - something that is impossible since He was a man. That being the case, and given what the Bible and the Confessions teach, He must have been made of Mary's DNA plus DNA supernaturally given when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Since He was a man, His X chromosome
> + 22 others came from Mary, and His Y chromosome + 22 others (XY = male, XX = female) were given to Him supernaturally. In other words, He had Mary's X chromosome along with her other 22 chromosomes, and He also had a Y chromosome + 22 other chromosomes given by God for a full diploid compliment of 46, which is the normal number for humans.
> 
> Since He is referred to as the "second Adam" on the basis of being without original sin, I wonder if God gave Him the same 23 chromosomes (22 + Y) He gave to Adam?
> 
> I'm not saying sin is somehow programmed into our DNA or that Jesus was anything less than 100% God, but it is interesting to consider what genetic material God used to form the physical, human aspect of Jesus.



If He did get supernatural DNA, wouldn't that have to be DNA never created until that time? How would that fit in with God resting from creating anything after the sixth day? Did He make an exception at Christ's conception? Did He really rest completely on the sixth day or did He hold out for one more creation of DNA for Christ? Interesting thought, although, I don't think we will get an answer this side of heaven.


----------



## BobVigneault

Great question on behalf of your son Ken.

Here are some other mind expanding thoughts to consider.

You are thinking of dna as being the source of information that dictates to each cell how to reproduce. Let's examine this using information theory though. 

DNA is really just an inert substance that is used to store encrypted data. The information we carry was first encoded by God using an infinitely efficient encryption scheme that would make mp4 look like a stone wheel. (If our dna was decoded and printed into books, they would reach to the moon.)

Then the information is downloaded into a storage device (dna) and waits to pass through decoders, also provided by the Creator and then it tells the cells how to differentiate.

Information theory, by the way, disproves evolution because although cells can mutate, in order for a simple organism to upgrade to a more complicated organism, new information needs to be introduced. Matter can never give rise to information so there must be a Creator who is an infinite source of information to create, download and infuse new information to make a more complex creature.

Anyway, the key word is *information*. Where does it come from? The gospel of John answers that question directly. In the beginning was the Logos (the full expression, the infinite informer, the full body of knowledge, the source of all thought), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God and it became flesh.

So Christ's dna was 'sui-generic' and Mary's dna was not necessary. The Logos informed the cells of Christ's body. The Logos had sovereign power over all things.


----------



## larryjf

Since Christ has two natures it is improper to think of Him in terms of having to follow the same genetic patterns as we see in those with only one nature (humans).


----------



## OPC'n

larryjf said:


> Since Christ has two natures it is improper to think of Him in terms of having to follow the same genetic patterns as we see in those with only one nature (humans).



That is precisely why He needed to have a full set of DNA. He wasn't half man half God. He was fully man (full set of DNA) and fully God.


----------



## larryjf

sjonee said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Christ has two natures it is improper to think of Him in terms of having to follow the same genetic patterns as we see in those with only one nature (humans).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely why He needed to have a full set of DNA. He wasn't half man half God. He was fully man (full set of DNA) and fully God.
Click to expand...


But isn't it presumptuous to think that human nature in an unfallen state needs DNA because that's what we see in the fallen state?

I think we speculate too far when we delve into matters such as these.

What is to say that Adam had an X and Y chromosome?

All that we have before us regarding the subject of genetics is how fallen man is genetically composed. Some geneticists state that the Y chromosome is actually a defective X chromosome (in that it is lacking one of the lines).


----------



## OPC'n

larryjf said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Christ has two natures it is improper to think of Him in terms of having to follow the same genetic patterns as we see in those with only one nature (humans).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely why He needed to have a full set of DNA. He wasn't half man half God. He was fully man (full set of DNA) and fully God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't it presumptuous to think that human nature in an unfallen state needs DNA because that's what we see in the fallen state?
> 
> I think we speculate too far when we delve into matters such as these.
> 
> What is to say that Adam had an X and Y chromosome?
> 
> All that we have before us regarding the subject of genetics is how fallen man is genetically composed. Some geneticists state that the Y chromosome is actually a defective X chromosome (in that it is lacking one of the lines).
Click to expand...


I guess this is possible. It would settle the dilemma of God's rest on the seventh day.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

larryjf said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Christ has two natures it is improper to think of Him in terms of having to follow the same genetic patterns as we see in those with only one nature (humans).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely why He needed to have a full set of DNA. He wasn't half man half God. He was fully man (full set of DNA) and fully God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't it presumptuous to think that human nature in an unfallen state needs DNA because that's what we see in the fallen state?
> 
> I think we speculate too far when we delve into matters such as these.
> 
> What is to say that Adam had an X and Y chromosome?
> 
> All that we have before us regarding the subject of genetics is how fallen man is genetically composed. Some geneticists state that the Y chromosome is actually a defective X chromosome (in that it is lacking one of the lines).
Click to expand...


First of all, I agree that this is all speculation and we can never know the right answer as finite humans.

However, it also doesn't make much sense to say that Jesus was fully man and yet at the same time suggest that He didn't have the same fundamental physical structure as all humans. If Jesus had no DNA (as Bob suggested), He would fundamentally be non-human because the very basis for our physical composition at the most basic level would be missing. Of course God sustains everything and could have sustained Jesus without DNA, but then I would have a hard time calling Him human. The Bible indicates He was fully God and fully man. There's no reason to believe His humanity was an exception to ours in any physical way, which would mean He possessed DNA of some sort. 

Again, it's all speculation, and none of us know for certain. But since we know He was fully man, I can't see how the very defining basis of physical humanity would somehow be absent in Him.

-----Added 1/20/2009 at 02:16:23 EST-----



sjonee said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a scientific perspective, this is an interesting question.
> 
> It is impossible for Him to have ONLY Mary's DNA, because then He would indeed be a clone of Mary - something that is impossible since He was a man. That being the case, and given what the Bible and the Confessions teach, He must have been made of Mary's DNA plus DNA supernaturally given when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Since He was a man, His X chromosome
> + 22 others came from Mary, and His Y chromosome + 22 others (XY = male, XX = female) were given to Him supernaturally. In other words, He had Mary's X chromosome along with her other 22 chromosomes, and He also had a Y chromosome + 22 other chromosomes given by God for a full diploid compliment of 46, which is the normal number for humans.
> 
> Since He is referred to as the "second Adam" on the basis of being without original sin, I wonder if God gave Him the same 23 chromosomes (22 + Y) He gave to Adam?
> 
> I'm not saying sin is somehow programmed into our DNA or that Jesus was anything less than 100% God, but it is interesting to consider what genetic material God used to form the physical, human aspect of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If He did get supernatural DNA, wouldn't that have to be DNA never created until that time? How would that fit in with God resting from creating anything after the sixth day? Did He make an exception at Christ's conception? Did He really rest completely on the sixth day or did He hold out for one more creation of DNA for Christ? Interesting thought, although, I don't think we will get an answer this side of heaven.
Click to expand...


You're right, impossible to know. But DNA is a physical structure composed of various atoms. God could have assembled a unique set of DNA from pre-existing material without creating anything new.


----------



## OPC'n

Oh, I didn't see Bob's answer! Now that is radical!


----------



## larryjf

ColdSilverMoon said:


> First of all, I agree that this is all speculation and we can never know the right answer as finite humans.
> 
> However, it also doesn't make much sense to say that Jesus was fully man and yet at the same time suggest that He didn't have the same fundamental physical structure as all humans. If Jesus had no DNA (as Bob suggested), He would fundamentally be non-human because the very basis for our physical composition at the most basic level would be missing. Of course God sustains everything and could have sustained Jesus without DNA, but then I would have a hard time calling Him human. The Bible indicates He was fully God and fully man. There's no reason to believe His humanity was an exception to ours in any physical way, which would mean He possessed DNA of some sort.
> 
> Again, it's all speculation, and none of us know for certain. But since we know He was fully man, I can't see how the very defining basis of physical humanity would somehow be absent in Him.



I think that you would have to say that we only know the DNA structure of "fallen" humanity. Is DNA what makes us human? Does the Bible speak to that? Isn't part of what makes us human the spirit that God places in us? And if so, where is that in our DNA?

I guess if you could show that to be fully man in an unfallen state one needs the same kind of DNA that we see in fallen man...then i would be more persuaded.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The WCF on Christ's humanity reflects the Chalcedonian definition that Christ was _fully human_. The divine nature did not confuse or convert his flesh. The Divines didn't have words to speak of DNA but they would unmistakingly affirm that Jesus was a Jew by ancestry. It is needless to speculate the precise makeup but it is not needless to affirm Christ's full humanity as being of our same substance that He might represent us.


----------



## larryjf

Semper Fidelis said:


> The WCF on Christ's humanity reflects the Chalcedonian definition that Christ was _fully human_. The divine nature did not confuse or convert his flesh. The Divines didn't have words to speak of DNA but they would unmistakingly affirm that Jesus was a Jew by ancestry. It is needless to speculate the precise makeup but it is not needless to affirm Christ's full humanity as being of our same substance that He might represent us.



Then the substance/essence of humanity is DNA? Wouldn't that lead us to think of identical twins as the same person?


----------



## BobVigneault

Radical!!??? Sarah, I'm simply taking you behind the curtain. You need to think outside the box, scribble outside the lines, open a whole new door, park your car on the neighbors lawn, wear pink with lime green and don't be afraid to mix your mashed potatoes with peas.



sjonee said:


> Oh, I didn't see Bob's answer! Now that is radical!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

larryjf said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I agree that this is all speculation and we can never know the right answer as finite humans.
> 
> However, it also doesn't make much sense to say that Jesus was fully man and yet at the same time suggest that He didn't have the same fundamental physical structure as all humans. If Jesus had no DNA (as Bob suggested), He would fundamentally be non-human because the very basis for our physical composition at the most basic level would be missing. Of course God sustains everything and could have sustained Jesus without DNA, but then I would have a hard time calling Him human. The Bible indicates He was fully God and fully man. There's no reason to believe His humanity was an exception to ours in any physical way, which would mean He possessed DNA of some sort.
> 
> Again, it's all speculation, and none of us know for certain. But since we know He was fully man, I can't see how the very defining basis of physical humanity would somehow be absent in Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you would have to say that we only know the DNA structure of "fallen" humanity. Is DNA what makes us human? Does the Bible speak to that? Isn't part of what makes us human the spirit that God places in us? And if so, where is that in our DNA?
> 
> I guess if you could show that to be fully man in an unfallen state one needs the same kind of DNA that we see in fallen man...then i would be more persuaded.
Click to expand...


Jesus was born into a fallen world. Thus there's no reason to think He wasn't prone to disease, sickness, etc. just like we are. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus had a perfect physical body. To say He lacked DNA is to say He was immune to all disease. Are we to believe Jesus never got sick? Never aged (we know this isn't true)? He is called our sympathetic High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16) because He was completely human and prone to our weaknesses, and is said to take the "form of a bondservant" (Philippians 2:13). To believe Jesus lacked DNA is to imply He had a perfect physical body, which is not the teaching of Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF on Christ's humanity reflects the Chalcedonian definition that Christ was _fully human_. The divine nature did not confuse or convert his flesh. The Divines didn't have words to speak of DNA but they would unmistakingly affirm that Jesus was a Jew by ancestry. It is needless to speculate the precise makeup but it is not needless to affirm Christ's full humanity as being of our same substance that He might represent us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the substance/essence of humanity is DNA? Wouldn't that lead us to think of identical twins as the same person?
Click to expand...


I didn't say that but I think we need to be careful, even as we talk about DNA, not to make Jesus anything other than human. I think it is safer to say "Yes" then to speculate that He was _unlike_ us and, therefore, some different kind of man than we. He was like us in every way except sin unless you believe sin is in DNA.


----------



## BobVigneault

I never said that Jesus didn't have dna. DNA is just storage media. I am saying that the information written on his DNA did not come from Mary but was instead informed by the Logos.

Jesus had every physical part that a human has but the information that controlled each cell is the same information and source that healed the cells of others.


----------



## larryjf

Semper Fidelis said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF on Christ's humanity reflects the Chalcedonian definition that Christ was _fully human_. The divine nature did not confuse or convert his flesh. The Divines didn't have words to speak of DNA but they would unmistakingly affirm that Jesus was a Jew by ancestry. It is needless to speculate the precise makeup but it is not needless to affirm Christ's full humanity as being of our same substance that He might represent us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the substance/essence of humanity is DNA? Wouldn't that lead us to think of identical twins as the same person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that but I think we need to be careful, even as we talk about DNA, not to make Jesus anything other than human. I think it is safer to say "Yes" then to speculate that He was _unlike_ us and, therefore, some different kind of man than we. He was like us in every way except sin unless you believe sin is in DNA.
Click to expand...


The point is that we don't know. If sin was found in the Y chromosome then we would have to backpedal quite a bit once we make a statement like Jesus had an X and Y chromosome just like the rest of fallen mankind.

An argument could be made that since we are conceived in sin that it is of genetic material in some way.

I just think these speculations seek to pry into the hidden knowledge of God too much.

I'm happy to say "i don't know anything about the genetic makeup of Jesus"


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF on Christ's humanity reflects the Chalcedonian definition that Christ was _fully human_. The divine nature did not confuse or convert his flesh. The Divines didn't have words to speak of DNA but they would unmistakingly affirm that Jesus was a Jew by ancestry. It is needless to speculate the precise makeup but it is not needless to affirm Christ's full humanity as being of our same substance that He might represent us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the substance/essence of humanity is DNA? Wouldn't that lead us to think of identical twins as the same person?
Click to expand...


To be human and to be a person are different things. Each twin is a unique person because they possess a distinct soul. Each twin is human because they possess human DNA and are made in the image of God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bob,

This is one area that we need to tread extremely carefully. The boundary markers set by Chalcedon are very careful to deny more that they affirm so as to give full expression to the things they do affirm. I'm not comfortable stating that Jesus had unique DNA.


----------



## larryjf

ColdSilverMoon said:


> To be human and to be a person are different things. Each twin is a unique person because they possess a distinct soul. Each twin is human because they possess human DNA and are made in the image of God.



Each twin is human because they possess a God-given soul. Man was not created until God breathed into him (Gen 2:7)

If they were human because of their DNA then my finger nail clippings would be human because they have my DNA.

When I say human I am speaking of "human beings" more specifically...not merely of something that comes from humans.


----------



## BobVigneault

And I didn't say he did. But while folks are giving speculation based on biology I'm adding the perspective of information theory. I am not stating dogma or doctrine. Jesus had human dna just as he had a human kidney and heart. His kidney and heart were moved by the 'prime mover' and worked inside the body of the God-man.

I'm not getting into substance, I'm just explaining what dna is in terms of information theory.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not comfortable stating that Jesus had unique DNA.


----------



## Hamalas

> My son asked if Jesus carried Mary's DNA. In other words,, did he look like her? Did he have a similar personality?



Of course he looked like her! They both shared wavy blond hair, shiny white teeth, pale skin, and blue eyes! Don't you watch TV?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

larryjf said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be human and to be a person are different things. Each twin is a unique person because they possess a distinct soul. Each twin is human because they possess human DNA and are made in the image of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each twin is human because they possess a God-given soul. Man was not created until God breathed into him (Gen 2:7)
> 
> If they were human because of their DNA then my finger nail clippings would be human because they have my DNA.
> 
> When I say human I am speaking of "human beings" more specifically...not merely of something that comes from humans.
Click to expand...


I know we're getting  but I think we're basically saying the same thing using different terminology. Each twin is a human because they possess the physical attributes of human (DNA) along with a soul (made in the image of God). Yet they are not the same person because their souls are unique and distinctive.


----------



## TimV

Well, if the male chromosomes were the same as God used to make Adam, that would help explain how Christ was the perfect Lamb of God. No chance of bad recessives showing up.

PS as to His eye and hair color, if He didn't have dark hair and eyes Judas wouldn't have had to use a kiss to ID Him.


----------



## CharlieJ

sjonee said:


> If He did get supernatural DNA, wouldn't that have to be DNA never created until that time? How would that fit in with God resting from creating anything after the sixth day? Did He make an exception at Christ's conception? Did He really rest completely on the sixth day or did He hold out for one more creation of DNA for Christ? Interesting thought, although, I don't think we will get an answer this side of heaven.



God has performed creative works since the 7th day. In Genesis 1, God rested from that particular segment of creative activity. God created manna in the desert. The virgin birth, DNA aside, was a creative miracle. Jesus particularly manifests creative miracles (water into wine, multiplication from bread). Regeneration is a creative miracle which foreshadows the ultimate recreation of the cosmos.


----------



## OPC'n

BobVigneault said:


> Radical!!??? Sarah, I'm simply taking you behind the curtain. You need to think outside the box, scribble outside the lines, open a whole new door, park your car on the neighbors lawn, wear pink with lime green and don't be afraid to mix your mashed potatoes with peas.
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I didn't see Bob's answer! Now that is radical!
Click to expand...


Why, Bob! Are spying on me! I do just those things!


----------



## larryjf

ColdSilverMoon said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be human and to be a person are different things. Each twin is a unique person because they possess a distinct soul. Each twin is human because they possess human DNA and are made in the image of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each twin is human because they possess a God-given soul. Man was not created until God breathed into him (Gen 2:7)
> 
> If they were human because of their DNA then my finger nail clippings would be human because they have my DNA.
> 
> When I say human I am speaking of "human beings" more specifically...not merely of something that comes from humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know we're getting  but I think we're basically saying the same thing using different terminology. Each twin is a human because they possess the physical attributes of human (DNA) along with a soul (made in the image of God). Yet they are not the same person because their souls are unique and distinctive.
Click to expand...


To be a human or a person one needs both a body and soul. So let's move past that...

Isn't it enough to say that Jesus is human and divine...why must we delve into issues that go beyond the biblical record in regard to His nature, speculating on things such as DNA?


----------



## Honor

ok please don't string me up but couldn't we just take a DNA sample from the Shroud of Torrin? that way we could know.. or atlease partly know... maybe

-----Added 1/20/2009 at 03:41:31 EST-----

BTW how old is the little boy that asked this question... because I have never even thought of it.


----------



## Hamalas

TimV said:


> Well, if the male chromosomes were the same as God used to make Adam, that would help explain how Christ was the perfect Lamb of God. No chance of bad recessives showing up.
> 
> PS as to His eye and hair color, if He didn't have dark hair and eyes Judas wouldn't have had to use a kiss to ID Him.



You do know that I was joking right?


----------



## ReformedWretch

there's some crazy dispensational novel on the end times based on the idea that government gets Jesus DNA and clones him thus making the anti Christ! Yes, I read it...a long time ago. Even then though I thought it was way out there.


----------



## Hamalas

PuritanBouncer said:


> there's some crazy dispensational novel on the end times based on the idea that government gets Jesus DNA and clones him thus making the anti Christ! Yes, I read it...a long time ago. Even then though I thought it was way out there.


----------



## ReformedWretch

The Christ Clone Trilogy


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

PuritanBouncer said:


> there's some crazy dispensational novel on the end times based on the idea that government gets Jesus DNA and clones him thus making the anti Christ! Yes, I read it...a long time ago. Even then though I thought it was way out there.



I thought I had dreamed that. I too remember such a work.

Also, about 7 or 8 years ago there was an article on some liberal site that talked about the second coming of Christ being on account of cloning. Science would somehow find Jesus' DNA and be able to clone Him, thus getting past the need for a bodily resurrection. Don't Dispensationalists and liberal come up with the most entertaining ideas?  and


----------



## KMK

Honor said:


> ok please don't string me up but couldn't we just take a DNA sample from the Shroud of Torrin? that way we could know.. or atlease partly know... maybe
> 
> -----Added 1/20/2009 at 03:41:31 EST-----
> 
> BTW how old is the little boy that asked this question... because I have never even thought of it.



He is 13.

------

It is not my desire to delve into the secret things of God and I respect those who are reluctant to do so. But... the Puritans did use the word 'conceive' when speaking of Mary's contribution. They also believed that Jesus was of her 'substance'. What would the Puritans have understood about conception that applied to Jesus? What did they understand about 'substances' that are passed down from parent to child? If not things like chromosomes and DNA, then what?

In other words,, this discussion can take place within the confines of determining the Puritan's definition of 'conception' and 'substance' right?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Honor said:


> ok please don't string me up but couldn't we just take a DNA sample from the Shroud of Torrin? that way we could know.. or atlease partly know... maybe
> 
> -----Added 1/20/2009 at 03:41:31 EST-----



!!!!!!!!


----------



## lynnie

There is some wierd DNA out there. A true hermaphrodite is 46 chromosomes XXXY. ( Normal is 46 with either 2 of them X or 2 of them XY.)The genitals are often ambiguous but generally lean towards more girl If I recall correctly, although they can have a small penis plus a vagina and ueterus. They tend to grow up girley as in no facial hair unless they get testosterone injections. 

There have been pregnancies although I don't know how that works. 

_Pregnancy in a Woman with a Y Chromosome after Removal of an Ovarian Dysgerminoma 

Yasumasa Tanaka M.D.a, Keiichi Fujiwara M.D., Ph.D.a, Hideaki Yamauchi M.D.b, Yoshiki Mikami M.D.a and Ichiro Kohno M.D., Ph.D.a

a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki City, 701-0192, Japan

b Department of Pathology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki City, 701-0192, Japan


Received 11 May 2000. Available online 25 March 2002. 

Abstract
Background. It appears to be a general belief that pregnancy might be impossible in women with the XY karyotype. Therefore, it is recommended that patients with dysgerminoma of the ovary associated with the XY karyotype should undergo a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Case. We report an extremely rare case of a true hermaphrodite with a 20% 46,XX/80% 46,XY karyotype who became pregnant after removal of an ovarian dysgerminoma. The patient had a completely normal female phenotype. A dysgerminoma with ovotestis was found in the right ovary. Two courses of chemotherapy following a right salpingo-oophorectomy were carried out. Nine months later she became pregnant and delivered a healthy male infant.

ScienceDirect - Gynecologic Oncology : Pregnancy in a Woman with a Y Chromosome after Removal of an Ovarian Dysgerminoma_

So Mary could have been a XXXY....and Jesus got just the XY?

Hard to picture Mary as a genetic anomaly though...although if all her parts worked fine and the male part was very small Joseph wouldn't know the difference.

Hope this isn't too creepy, but you asked 

On the other hand maybe God worked a marvelous miracle


----------



## Ex Nihilo

lynnie said:


> *Hope this isn't too creepy,* but you asked
> 
> On the other hand maybe God worked a marvelous miracle



Just a little!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

See what happens when we speculate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

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, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


----------

