Jesus's DNA

[pgrmdave]

I've been wondering for a while now, in what sense do most people think Jesus is/was the Son of God? Did Jesus share his DNA with God? Clearly he wasn't made entirely of Mary's DNA or he couldn't have been male. Was Jesus the Son in a figurative way? Perhaps God spoke directly to him, and through him, and the best word to describe that was son?

[Racoon]

huh?

Never really thought about that.

Immaculate conception - where did the other 1/2 of Jesus's DNA come from?

 

I guess thats why it was a Miracle! :eek2:

God talks through me all the time too; S'why I'm locked up in a padded cell and heavily medicated! :eek2: :)

 

Nice Thread start pgrmdave! :)

I'll be very interested to see/read what explanations people might have ???

[arkain101]

I'll try not to sound like a jackass but this is what I understand.

 

Jesus was the son of man. A human being like you and I.

 

Christ is the son of god. Micheal.

 

We are all these children of god. Our existence (soul/spirit/god fragment) is this son/daughter of god.

 

Jesus said, it is not me who speaks to you these words, it is the father, and when he spoke through jesus he said I am christ the son of god.

 

Jesus I suppose was able to channel the spirit of the son of god that I guess is in each of us, and is each of us. He was able to expand his consciousness enough that the christ consciousness could speak through him.

 

I am not so sure but what I see is that our father the lord is christ, the creator the Alpha Omega father/mother is the god of gods .

 

This is what jesus taught.

 

He said, you are humans "the son of man" follow me (says christ through jesus) follow me, and be saved. Not literally follow him, but in your consciousness in your heart in your faith follow my message, carry it with you, learn of it and you will understand. Understand what? you will reep a knowing of christ consciousness.

 

I am not a religious person, I did have what people call a spiritual awakening, and the world transformed before my eyes, and I **** you not, it felt like my consciousness had been re-born. I read through some teachings of jesus and other parts of the bible.. and this is what I saw. There is what the words say, but the message between the words speaks to you in a different way. between the lines lays the true message in the words. It was difficult to explain to the culture back then. Very very few were educated and needed a very non complex way of hearing what was being said.. which is why it seems now to us a litle bit confusing when we hear of and read of some of the messages written down in the scripts.

 

This is just what I feel I have concluded, but I also havnt read enough to go much further into it.

[arkain101]

I need to re-read a few of the things to more properly explain..

 

Actually, I think this is basically what the Urantia Book says, is it not? (turtle?)

[Boerseun]

Mary was shacked up with Joseph. Mary got pregnant. Doesn't take a genius to figure out who the father was. Remember, back in those days, extramarital sex was punishable by death, so they had to think quick. And think quick they did, and they came up with a lame-*** story about Mary being raped by God. Thankfully, the populace was incredibly ignorant back in those days, so they bought it.

To think that up until today a quickie gone wrong 2,000 years ago can have such an impact on the world. Amazing.

[ughaibu]

Aren't there two other gospels, Thomas and Nichodemus, in which the father is a Greek mercenary?

Also, thinking about Jesus' tendency to use the term "the father", isn't it possible that he meant this somewhat literally and that he was espousing a form of ancestor worship?

[Biochemist]

Mary was shacked up with Joseph.

Actually, she wasn't. That is why the text shows that Joseph intended to leave her.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out who the father was. Remember, back in those days, extramarital sex was punishable by death, so they had to think quick.

Only if they were Jewish (which they were). That is why Joseph was trying to be discreet about getting rid of Mary. You might note that Joseh and Mary stayed together (in spite of some significant and undoubtedly traumatic social censure) and Mary was still not stoned. Interesting isn't it?

Thankfully, the populace was incredibly ignorant back in those days, so they bought it.

Looks like ignorance is still extant.:confused:

[Biochemist]

...in what sense do most people think Jesus is/was the Son of God? Did Jesus share his DNA with God? Clearly he wasn't made entirely of Mary's DNA or he couldn't have been male. Was Jesus the Son in a figurative way? Perhaps God spoke directly to him, and through him, and the best word to describe that was son?

Good questions. Actually, Jesus could have been entirely Mary's DNA (she would probably have to have had some genetic anomaly like Turner's mosaic, and had some XXY germ cells) but that is all conjecture. I don't think the story is written as a science text, so all we have is text like "only begotten son" as the answer to your question. The notion of "begotten" seems to suggest that the relationship is more than figurative, but I am sure there are some smart folks (even among Christians) that believe otherwise.

[HydrogenBond]

There are species that reproduce assexually. I think earth worms come under this category. It shows that it is possible in nature. It is not clear whether a human could do this. One possible scenario is to assume that Mary's ovuum contained half her DNA and the other half was outside the ovuum like normal. The outside half comes back it, for some reason, and starts the growing process. This would lead to Jesus having Mary's DNA.

 

When the ovuum is fertilized there is a shiffling process of the genes as the two halves of the DNA blend. At the same time, a rather large fraction of the genes within the combined DNA will be eventually packed away and are usually referrred to as junk genes that are assumed to have little function. It is not impossible, for the shuffling of the genes to end up with a different distribution of junk genes than Mary had. The result might be entirely different person. Maybe the modern junk genes actually contain higher human potential that is dormant or not yet perfected enough to be part of the active gene pool.

[Four Dogs]

It's completely pointless to ask this question. If you believe the scriptures then you believe that Jesus was the son of God. If an entity is great enough to create the universe and all the life in it then we needn't get bogged down in such minutia as Gods silly putty. If he chose to make Joseph the genetic father then no pre-marital haky panky would have been necessary. It is as he wills it to be.

[colin590]

:shrug:

[Biochemist]

It's completely pointless to ask this question. If you believe the scriptures then you believe that Jesus was the son of God....

There are a lot of theists (such as myself) that expect God to work through mechanisms he established. I don't disallow for the single-event-miracle, but God (objectively) does not work that way very often. It is reasonable for anyone, theist or not, to be curious about the mechanism for any action in the physical world. Investigation of cause and effect is the core of basic science.

 

Personally, I think that precluding significant events from review just because of inexplicability is not reasonable. I also think that everyday activities are miraculous. Just because effects are reproducible (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, birth) does not (to me) make them less miraculous.

[Four Dogs]

There are a lot of theists (such as myself) that expect God to work through mechanisms he established. I don't disallow for the single-event-miracle, but God (objectively) does not work that way very often. It is reasonable for anyone, theist or not, to be curious about the mechanism for any action in the physical world. Investigation of cause and effect is the core of basic science.

 

Personally, I think that precluding significant events from review just because of inexplicability is not reasonable. I also think that everyday activities are miraculous. Just because effects are reproducible (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, birth) does not (to me) make them less miraculous.

 

Oh, I agree. I personaly don't buy into anything that puts the supernatural above the natural. I believe that Christ existed but question his origin. But those of us with a more spiritual bent shouldn't be intimidated by comments such as the ones Boerseun made. He's basically saying that Mary was a tramp that got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. If you believe that God is all powerful, no science will or should be able to disuade you from your faith and in that respect, the question is pointless. If there is a God then certainly he would be free and perhaps obligated to utilize the tools and equipment he put in place.

[Biochemist]

...But those of us with a more spiritual bent shouldn't be intimidated by comments such as the ones Boerseun made. He's basically saying that Mary was a tramp that got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. ...

I am not intimitated by B at all. He is usually quite the thoughtful participant. I was gently pushing back on him because I thought his view was not particularly thoughtful. I was hoping he might come back and defend himself on that point.

 

Discussions about the life of Jesus (whether or not they include miracles) are alway interesting, in that folks elect to pick and choose which elements of the Biblical text have credibility. I think it is a little inconsistent to suggest Jesus was born to Mary (affirming the text) but to ascribe a father that is explicitly refuted in the text. It would be more reasonable (if you are going to assume a natural birth) to suggest that Mary was impregnated by an unknown male. Overall, even that is pretty untenable for a host of reasons, but is more supportable than suggesting that Joseph's fatherhood is a no-brainer.

 

 

I was making fun of B for taking a weak position and characterizing it as the "obvious" answer.

[HydrogenBond]

Based on what science know today, we can not explain a virgin birth. It does not mean it could not happen, only that science can not explain it. It is very presumptuous of science to assume that current knowledge is the final state of the art. Before science could see germs, they did not exist. They always existed but the assumption that science knows all, convinced science that if we can not see it, it can not be possible.

[pgrmdave]

Are you suggesting that we don't know enough of genetics to understand that a human could not spontaneously impregnate herself, much less with a male child? I understand that if one accepts an all-powerful god then it doesn't take much to believe in miricles, however, this means that none of science actually matters. Science is involved in making predictions based on what happened in the past and with knowledge of how objects interact. If there is a diety out there who can alter the rules at will, then we can rightfully assume that no prediction can possibly be accurate because we don't know when/if that god would ever change anything.

 

I believe that there is a creator, and he/she/it created the rules of the universe, the laws of physics and mathematics and whatever else is involved in creating a world. The question does assume that stance to a degree - that fertilization has to involve an egg and a sperm. Since many people believe that Jesus was the literal child of God, I was wondering whether people actually thought that God had DNA, or he was simply a figurative child, or that someone else was the father.

[ughaibu]

India constantly has several incarnations of Visnu. I expect sometimes they receive medical treatment. If you assume that all incarnations of god are consistent, maybe investigating them will answer your question.