Jesus's DNA

[Biochemist]

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? ..

Actually, we know enough to know that she could. Parthenogenesis is the term for auto-pregnancy in sexually reproductive species. In sexually reproductive species, parthenogenesis would require that the offspring be female, an exact genetic replication of the mother.

 

In my note above, I suggested that things would have to be somewhat different for a mother to have a parthenogenetic male child. Specifically, the mother would have to have some X chromosomes. This does happen occasionally, and the syndrome is called Turner's mosaic, where some maternal cells (even germ cells) are XXY. It would be thus feasible, although unlikely, that a Turner's mosaic mother could have a parthenogenetic male child.

 

No one has ever documented such an occurence.

 

There was once a research attempt to document female parthenogenetic events in Britain (reported in the Lancet in 1956). The researchers were convinced that some cases of natural parthenogenesis did occur in humans in Britain (e.g., some women were pregnant when the birth canal was obstructed, and there was no avenue for sperm penetration.)

 

Extending this notion to successful male-offspring parthenogeneis is speculative, but not genetically impossible.

[arkain101]

again,

 

There are much details which are not of importance.

 

A message was sent, it had a story, the message was purposeful and meaningful, the story is the background to the message which is the action. We may never know the who what where and hows.. and we must apply the posistion of a uneducated person in the the ancient times when jesus walked the earth. But, we can always depend on the message, the depth in the message that contains much useful information to consider and sift through.

[HydrogenBond]

What you say is true. One can get bogged down in a little point to where you lose track of the forest.

 

But along the lines of geneic speculation, I read an article , based on 1st century writings. Mary had been a temple priestess trainee when she was young. These were the cream of the crop girls of their day. Mary Magdeline became a full temple priestess a generation later. They were sorority sisters of sorts. The priestess were sort of geisa girls; very educated, spiritual, sensual, artistic. When Mary got pregnant, at about 16, she was given to Joseph for a wife to avoid scandel. The unsubstantiated speculation is that a Roman Officer got Mary pregnant. This theory gives Jesus genes from two very precocious parents.

[Saitia]

. . .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?

 

Arkain, Dave, et al,

 

Most traditional Christians, of course, believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity; non-trinitatians just accept him as the only begotten Son. I don't think he was either one of those as it is commonly held today; I'll get to that in a bit.

 

 

I believe Arkain mentioned The Urantia Book, attributing a few of his comments to it.

Some of it's interesting assertions about Joseph and Mary as the parents of Jesus:

 

"Joseph was a Hebrew, but apparently carried many non-Jewish racial strains which had been added to his ancestral tree from time to time by the female lines of his progenitors," including the Sumerians. David and Solomon were not in the direct line of Joseph's ancestry. Joseph's lineage did not go directly back to Adam. His immediate ancestors were builders, carpenters, masons, and smiths. Joseph was a carpenter and later a contractor. His family belonged to a long and illustrious line of the "nobility of the common people," accentuated periodically by unusual individuals who had "distinguished themselves in connection with the evolution of religion on Urantia."

 

Mary was a descendant of many of "the most remarkable women in the racial history of Urantia." Said to be an average woman of her day and generation, her ancestors included Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, Eve, and several others. "No Jewish woman of that day had a more illustrious lineage of common progenitors or one extending back to more auspicious beginnings. "Mary's ancestry, like Joseph's, was characterized by the predominance of strong but average individuals, relieved now and then by numerous outstanding personalities in the march of civilization and the progressive evolution of religion. Racially considered, it is hardly proper to regard Mary as a Jewess. In culture and belief she was a Jew, but in hereditary endowment she was more a composite of Syrian, Hittite, Phoenician, Greek, and Egyptian stocks, her racial inheritance being more general than that of Joseph."

 

"Of all couples living in Palestine at about the time of Michael's projected bestowal, Joseph and Mary possessed the most ideal combination of widespread racial connections and superior average of personality endowments. It was the plan of Michael to appear on earth as an average man, that the common people might understand him and receive him."

 

Joseph and Mary were legally married in March of 8 B.C. after a normal courtship of almost two years. Joshua Ben Joseph was born August 21, 7 B. C. according to the book, in the same manner as all babies before or since. In other words, there was no "virgin birth." There are several paragraphs which elaborate on the personality traits of Mary and Joseph, and how their traits manifested in the personality of Jesus as well:

 

"Jesus derived much of his unusual gentleness and marvelous sympathetic understanding of human nature from his father; he inherited his gift as a great teacher and his tremendous capacity for righteous indignation from his mother. In emotional reactions to his adult-life environment, Jesus was at one time like his father, meditative and worshipful, sometimes characterized by apparent sadness; but more often he drove forward in the manner of his mother's optimistic and determined disposition. All in all, Mary's temperament tended to dominate the career of the divine Son as he grew up and swung into the momentous strides of his adult life. In some particulars Jesus was a blending of his parents' traits; in other respects he exhibited the traits of one in contrast with those of the other."

 

The Urantia Book presents Jesus as the incarnation of Michael, a "Creator Son." He is one of 700,000 such beings, although his relationship to God the Father is as described in the Bible, i.e., "The Father and I are one. He who has seen me has seen the Father." His incarnation as a human infant was the final of seven required bestowals in the likeness of the various orders of creatures he had created in his "local universe." These bestowals were a requirement for gaining complete sovereignty over his creation.

 

All in all, a remarkable and unprecedented narrative, imo.

 

 

—Saitia

[arkain101]

I have not really read much of the Urantia book. Very little infact. So that aside now.

 

To summerize how I understand of what has been written it goes a little like this.

 

Jesus was a human. Born somewhere as a baby. He was a smart boy who felt pulled towards investigating religion. He experienced some moments in his life that gave him the notion he had a mission. What happened No idea. He was baptised by John and the spirit of christ seemed to enter his body then. Christ is a spirit being who is the decendent of what makes god. Christ filled his spirit in Jesus and spoke through him. There are such quotes where jesus would explain, at times it is not I the body man who speaks, but at times the lord / christ speaks through me, and when christ said something he would refer directly to himself first person and speak of his father, the father, who we call a god, the alpha and omega.

So there is God The Father, The Lord Christ the son of god, The jesus human a son of man in the story of jesus-christ.

So much of what is taught in the bible is believed to be from what I gather knowledge from a devine being, or celestial being, from the spiritual realm that spoke to the world through a man.

 

Either way, Im not sure what to make of it, and Im sure we could be forgiven for that since I mean things have changed since those days and we dont know what could be accurate. But, there sure was a lot of crucial information created from somewhere to help the world in those times find a footing in what is going on as to how or why they exist / are here on this earth.

 

The religions that spawned were not and are still not so true to the find messages given from those times. It is an education and understanding to understand what jesus shared, but too many were signed up like a military draft and used this as some kind of right to act how they did in the history we know.

 

equation of existence.

 

Existence = Ex.

0= infinity / nothingness representation of lack there of countable and lack there of numerals of countable. The off.

1=A finite and countable part of reality. The on.

 

Ex=0+1

 

Existence is equal to infinity/nothing and a finite something.

 

Frequencies on, off. 1, 0.

 

The equation can be simplified as Ex=1.

On = Existence.

Because there IS existence, and a nothing is what we say does not exist. Then all that has ever existed is existence. It is impossible to have nothingness, and lack of existence, it is the invevitble reason for god, or the universe. It is impossible to have nothingness because there is existence, nothingness wasnt and cant be. Existence is and all there can ever be.

[Tarascon]

Jesus's DNA

1) First, please excuse my english. I learned it in the street, meaning that I am better in speking it.

About the issue: was Jesus Christ the Son of God?

Well... Reading articles about the holly encounter betwen the Vigin and the Spirit some thoughts came to me. Mary was a member of the eseeni community and she has to remain a unmarried virgin, but some day she became pregnant and her fate was to be killed by stones. I can not retain myself to think that she managed to run away from the punishment by telling a wonderful story.

By the way: in the original hebrew Bible Mary is reffered to as "a young girl" and not as a virgin.

2) I can see also analogs with the greec mythology.

3) The Son sacrifice...

Well, did the humanity became a better place to live after crucifiction?

[nazorean]

If Jesus is indeed the 'Son of God,' then who is the 'Son of Man?' Are both of these references actually used to describe Jesus? Further, how can Jesus be the 'Son of God' and still have a human lineage as outlined, differently, in both Matthew and Luke. Some Christian Apologists have claimed that the Luke lineage is that of Mary, but if Jesus is the 'Son of God' then whose lineage is outlined in Matthew?

[ben_gal]

If Jesus is indeed the 'Son of God,' then who is the 'Son of Man?' Are both of these references actually used to describe Jesus? Further, how can Jesus be the 'Son of God' and still have a human lineage as outlined, differently, in both Matthew and Luke. Some Christian Apologists have claimed that the Luke lineage is that of Mary, but if Jesus is the 'Son of God' then whose lineage is outlined in Matthew?

 

There are three entities:

1) God

2) HIS messengers [Abraham, Izhak, Jacob, Moise, etc.]

3) Mesiah.

[CraigD]

There are three entities:

1) God

2) HIS messengers [Abraham, Izhak, Jacob, Moise, etc.]

3) Mesiah.

This seems a rather impoverished list of categories of actors, compared to that of most religious traditions! What’s its source, ben_gal? What religion? What document or unwritten story? :wink:

 

Considering just the two largest religions and their most popular holy documents, Christianity and its Bible, and Islam and its Koran there are at least a few other classes of beings. There are, of course, just regular humans, typically divided into believers/chosen vs. nonbelievers/heathens. The Bible’s Old Testament book Genesis has a somewhat mysterious reference to people from the land of Nod who were not descendents of Adam and Eve, among whom Cain took an unnamed wife by whom he had at least one child.

 

Both have angels, AKA messengers, are considered by both religions to be neither humans not God. Some interpretations of the Bible’s old testament suggest that the other, AKA false, gods it admonishes the faithful from worshiping are false in the sense of being inferior to the one true God, not in their existing as a different sort of being than a human or animal.

 

Even animals and plants are subcategorized. There are those that should and should not be eaten, ie: kosher and unclean. There’s also a very odd category, talking animals, which to the best of my Biblical knowledge include only the talking snake, which most modern Christians consider an incarnation of Satan (who, depending on interpretation and secondary documents, may be a kind of angel), and Balaam’s talking donkey.

 

Somewhere in some religious denomination’s hierarchy of actors, is the distinction between merely human children of women and men, and the partly-god children of women and God, the subject of this thread, which neither I nor ben_gal have broached in the last 2 posts.

[ben_gal]

CraigD

 

Considering just the two largest religions and their most popular holy documents, Christianity and its Bible, and Islam and its Koran there are at least a few other classes of beings. There are, of course, just regular humans, typically divided into believers/chosen vs. nonbelievers/heathens. The Bible’s Old Testament book Genesis has a somewhat mysterious reference to people from the land of Nod who were not descendents of Adam and Eve, among whom Cain took an unnamed wife by whom he had at least one child.

The first low in Decalog speak about only one God.

The Trinity issue is not in the BIBLE, neither in the NT.

 

CraigD

Even animals and plants are subcategorized. There are those that should and should not be eaten, ie: kosher and unclean. There’s also a very odd category, talking animals, which to the best of my Biblical knowledge include only the talking snake (Serpent (Bible) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which most modern Christians consider an incarnation of Satan (who, depending on interpretation and secondary documents, may be a kind of angel), and Balaam’s talking donkey (Balaam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

 

What about consuming swines?, an incarnation of Satan.

[Rade]

Perhaps Jesus was an XX male--very rare, but known. This would require parthenogenesis development in one of XX ovum of Mary, completely unknown in primates. Another possibility is that Jesus XXY male, and Mary had XXY ovum with parthenogenesis development, again such parthenogenesis is unknown in primates. Also, there are some females known with functional testis--it is not a far stretch of imagination that Mary with XX ovum was one such female and that she was able to transfer her own sperm with Y chromosome so that fertilization was possible. So, as strange as it may sound, there are a number of DNA sex chromosome possibilities for Jesus to only have a single genetic parent, true all very rare, but within possibility.

[Pyrotex]

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.

Yes, it is pointless.

 

If an entity is great enough to create the universe and all life in it, it raises the question of why this entity is so bogged down in such minutia as our silly putty.

 

There are two lists of ancestors leading to Jesus in the NT (one is in Matthew). However, the two lists "fork" a number of generations before Jesus, showing his ancestry through different people. I think one of them states Joseph as his biological father.

 

If Jesus was an actual living human being ("Teach the Controversy!") then he had to have a set of male provided genes. Given the technology back then, those genes would have to have been provided to Mary the old-fashioned way.

 

The phrase "son of god" is either literal, or it is figurative (or metaphorical, or symbolic, or poetic, or something besides literal). If it is literal, then the big G provided the silly putty, which raises up all kinds of interesting and uncomfortable questions, such as, 'how big is god's penis?' If it is figurative, then the phrase means whatever cultural meme was prevalent at the time of the writing. Perhaps it just means "speaks for god" -- like a prophet or street corner preacher. Likewise, "children of God" (which occurs in totally different contexts) might mean "followers", "believers", "contributors of one talent of silver or more", or just "human beings in general" or "middle to upper class Hebrews in general".

 

The Bible (and Christianity as preached) is full of words and phrases that are suggestive, not definitive, and this enables the reader to interpret them pretty much any way they want to. This is both the blessing and the curse of religion. Metaphorically speaking, of course. :shrug:

[dduckwessel]

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 concerned with the physical world and that matters and is fascinating. Spirituality deals with the metaphysical but I also think that's really fascinating.

 

Many assume the physical is the 'real' thing and the metaphysical 'not real' but what if it's the other way around - the physical is 'not real' and the metaphysical is our true state. In which case miracles would be the normal way of things and the absence of them, an abnormal state.

 

An example is 'Jesus walking on the water (Matt. 14)'. Jesus could do that because he knew the true state of things are metaphysical and that the water was not real.

 

In Mary's case, physical laws were temporarily suspended, which means that Mary herself recognized her true state as being that of a metaphysical being.

 

This would certainly agree with the idea that our universe is something akin to a hologram, not real and thus the reason why the universe itself is unfriendly to human habitation. If God were in this creation, it would be friendly towards us, perfect and static.

[sigurdV]

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?

 

Either god has dna or jesus was adopted!

 

Cool that somebody else understands the importance of the fact.