hypothetically speaking, if the virgin mary conceived jesus without mortal male contribution, where would the DNA have come from? since jesus was allegedly male, he would have required at least a Y chromosome, which mary would have been unable to provide. presumably, god would have made up this deficit. so did jesus carry god's DNA? and if he had had children of his own, would they too carry god's DNA?

Technically, he would have 1/2 of the Holy Spirit's DNA. And his kids (if any) would be 1/4 Holy Spirit.

And people are correct when they state that Jesus didn't have any brothers. If Joseph and Mary had any other kids, they'd be half-siblings to Jesus (same mother).

I guess that would make the Immaculate Conception a (very, very distant) case of incest. Because Mary was a direct descendant (what is an indirect descendant anyway?) of Adam and Eve. Since Eve was created from part of Adam, she would probably have his DNA. And since God created Adam in his image, Adam would have God's DNA.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Since Eve was created from part of Adam, she would probably have his DNA. And since God created Adam in his image, Adam would have God's DNA.

except for those funky people from Nod, i suppose we're all descendants of adam and eve, hence we are all related, and products of incest.
by now we must be really, really inbred. no wonder humanity is so messed up!

http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16302

the above link is to a book that claims
his DNA lives on today

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

^^The Last Scion?^^

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Technically, he would have 1/2 of the Holy Spirit's DNA. And his kids (if any) would be 1/4 Holy Spirit.

Not necessarily. God, being omnipotent, could make Mary's child have any type of DNA He wished. It could have been Mary's DNA, only with a Y chromosome. He may not have even had ANY of Mary's DNA. When you're dealing with "immaculate conception" the normal rules don't apply.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-30-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Not necessarily. God, being omnipotent, could make Mary's child have any type of DNA He wished. It could have been Mary's DNA, only with a Y chromosome. He may not have even had ANY of Mary's DNA. When you're dealing with "immaculate conception" the normal rules don't apply.

No but basic laws of physics and biology should...

Never mind.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 05-30-2005).]

quote Originally posted by dezie36: No but basic laws of physics and biology should...

Why? The very concept of immaculate conception contradicts the basic laws of biology. If you're explaining an immaculate conception, then you are accepting the fact that there is an omnipotent God. (otherwise, there's no immaculate conception). If God is omnipotent, He can make it happen however he desires and since he created the laws of physics and biology, he can alter them as he sees fit.

Jesus' DNA could have been something no other human has ever had. If he's truly the Son of God, it's possible there wasn't a trace of normal human DNA, because that would have been less perfect.

When you try to reconcile religion and science it gets tricky, and without a blood test there's no real way to know for sure. He could have just had Mary and Joseph's DNA, just like if they had a normal child - only without conception through sex. We really don't know.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-30-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: When you're dealing with "immaculate conception" the normal rules don't apply.

...as with any work of fiction.

If you've read the book the divinci code, it talks about jesus being mortal and having a wife and then having children. Then it gets into the search for the holy grail, which is really the search for jesus's bloodline.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: ...as with any work of fiction.

Your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. lurker asked us to hypothetically consider the DNA from the immaculate conception. That means, assuming it happened, what would the DNA be like.

All you're saying is, assuming it happened - it didn't happen. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. If you want to troll, do it somewhere else.

Since we're all assuming things here, let's assume that God used the Holy Spirit's DNA for Jesus' male chromosome (as Steve Normington asserts). That would make the Holy Spirit a Male, wouldn't it? So if we back up a bit and consider the "Trinity" why is there no female in the family of God? You have the Father, the son, and you would naturally assume to have a mother, but no, we have a "holy spirit" in her place. What's THAT all about? Is the Holy Spirit transgendered or maybe even gay? If that's the case then Jesus had a statistically significant chance of being homosexual, which would explain why he never spoke out about homosexuality and had a 'favorite' apostle. Thanks guys, I'm glad we figured this out.

[This message has been edited by GT (edited 05-31-2005).]

They cover all this in "Preacher".

http://www.neonwheels.com/preacher/index.shtml

Humperdido.

quote When you try to reconcile religion and science it gets tricky, and without a blood test there's no real way to know for sure. He could have just had Mary and Joseph's DNA, just like if they had a normal child - only without conception through sex. We really don't know.

How could Jesus have Joseph's DNA?

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 05-31-2005).]

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: How could Jesus have Joseph's DNA?

Easy. It is explained in Luke 1: 38 1/2 So the LORD God caused the man betrothed to Mary to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took of the man's seed and closed up the place with flesh and caused her to be great with child

Apparantly, Jesus was the world's first in vitro fertilization.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Easy. It is explained in Luke 1: 38 1/2 So the LORD God caused the man betrothed to Mary to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took of the man's seed and closed up the place with flesh and caused her to be great with child Apparantly, Jesus was the world's first in vitro fertilization.

Which version of Luke's gospel is that in?

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: Which version of Luke's gospel is that in?

The Steve Normington edition (if King James can have one, then so can I ).

quote Originally posted by GT: Since we're all assuming things here, let's assume that God used the Holy Spirit's DNA for Jesus' male chromosome (as Steve Normington asserts). That would make the Holy Spirit a Male, wouldn't it? So if we back up a bit and consider the "Trinity" why is there no female in the family of God? You have the Father, the son, and you would naturally assume to have a mother, but no, we have a "holy spirit" in her place. What's THAT all about? Is the Holy Spirit transgendered or maybe even gay? If that's the case then Jesus had a statistically significant chance of being homosexual, which would explain why he never spoke out about homosexuality and had a 'favorite' apostle. Thanks guys, I'm glad we figured this out.

Interesting, but wouldn't Mary be the female aspect? According to Catholic faith, Mary is the "Mother of God." So that covers your female concerns.

Apparently Christ always existed as "The Word" of God, long before Mary was born. So Christ (the son), and God (the father) existed eternally before the new testament. My memory of the old testament is failing right now so I can't remember if the Holy Spirit is a new cast member of the New Testament. But as I recall, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(Ghost) lived together eternally before the Word became man. So if the Word became Jesus for three decades that tells me that the Word already had male DNA from somewhere (The Father) and that the Holy Spirit must be the mother. If this is the case and the Holy Spirit descended on Mary, all I can say is holy moly! Girl on girl! Wooooweeeeeee!! he he. Mary was only 13 wasnt she? That's kind of sick...

The only way I can reconcile Mary being the mother of God is in Hoyle's assertion that time flows in both directions. In that case Christ's birth could have run both directions in time. Christ became spirit and human at the same time and existed in the old testament as spirit and the new testament as human. But then he had to be born of Mary first in order to go back and create the universe...

Back to the point, though, if Christ IS the Word of God, then surely he is pure data or information, which is what DNA is so he could have had the DNA sequence of a male or female.

My brain hurts... time to stop...

So Mary isn't the Mother of God, but the Host Mother of God?

Read the book "The Genesis Race" by Will Hart.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion... All you're saying is, assuming it happened - it didn't happen. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. If you want to troll, do it somewhere else.

When the hell were you appointed the Grand Poo-Bah of this forum?

Thanks, but I’ll comment here whenever, wherever, and however I wish - whether you like it or not.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: lurker asked us to hypothetically consider the DNA from the immaculate conception. That means, assuming it happened, what would the DNA be like.

Yes, and if you climb down from your pedestal (or is it a pulpit?) for a moment and take a close look at Lurker’s original post, you’ll see a little smiley face winking back at you. In other words, it appears that Lurker was just having a little fun. You know what fun is, don’t you? Jokes, humour, stuff that makes you laugh. No, maybe you don’t know...

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-31-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: When the hell were you appointed the Grand Poo-Bah of this forum? Thanks, but I’ll comment here whenever, wherever, and however I wish - whether you like it or not.

My point, that you so cleanly missed, was that saying it's fiction has nothing to do with the discussion. It's not about whether or not Mary had Jesus and if there was an immaculate conception - we take those as base assumptions based on this particular topic of conversation.

You can comment all you want. But coments about the immaculate conception being fiction are as germain to this discussion as your favorite pizza or how long it's been since you changed your underwear. It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.

And yes, I know what fun is. I was trying to have a discussion based on what he posted. If you feel a gives you free reign to post non sequitor ramblings, then I have a mambo the dogface you might like to banana patch.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If you feel a gives you free reign to post non sequitor ramblings, then I have a mambo the dogface you might like to banana patch.

I hate to break this to you, but “mambo the dogface you might like to banana patch” makes about as much sense to educated, enlightened people as does “immaculate conception”. Deal with it.

then I have a mambo the dogface you might like to banana patch.
Oh man that's funny! OH man!

Dogma is such a great movie..... Only because Ben Afleck dies.

------------------
This sig sucks

ok, yes, i was having some fun when i started the thread. i distinctly remember thinking "this'll liven things up".

while it's fair to say "not possible", or "it was a miracle", i dont think either of those contributes meaningfully to the topic. i'm interested in the implications, "if this, and if that". why, for example, has no one tried to make a "master race" of Jesus' alleged descendants?

i am favorably impressed that the thread has remained as lucid and civil as it has, thanks. carry on.

quote Originally posted by lurker: ok, yes, i was having some fun when i started the thread. i distinctly remember thinking "this'll liven things up".

Yes, you knew damn well what would happen when you threw the bible thumpers a bone!

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Yes, you knew damn well what would happen when you threw the bible thumpers a bone!

i'm glad to say there's been next to no thumping here. there have been a couple of posts that are theologically obscure to me (like the "holy spirit" verbage), but they've done very well bringing it around to topic.
now, i'm not what you'd call a church-going man, weddings and funerals are quite enough for me, and frankly i'm an out and out agnostic atheist (disbelieve, admit uncertainty). so i agree that some of the bible is fiction, especially the parts about omnipotent supernatural beings. it still has value to me, as an historical document and as a philosophical and moral treatise.
but i'm also a bit of a mystic (i dont fully understand the entire universe) and animist (all life has "spirit", and a "right" to try to defend itself), and i find issues of spirituality interesting, so i didnt start the thread (entirely) to troll. but this thread isnt about me.
i'm pleased by most of the discussion, because it offers some insight and produces more questions.

Kekipi-

Thanks for the lead on the book. I did some research on the subject of the book and I'm not yet ready to believe that aliens started life on earth. Maybe they did, maybe not. Maybe the holy spirit is a transgendered alien. Don't know enough yet to have an opinion. But what I did find interesting in some of the reading I did is how kewl the Mayan calendar was. Very complicated. I plan on learning the Mayan calendar for fun. Looks like it will lead me into many new areas of research. Thanks again.

-Rick

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I hate to break this to you, but “mambo the dogface you might like to banana patch” makes about as much sense to educated, enlightened people as does “immaculate conception”. Deal with it.

So you educated, enlightened people are incapable of having a hypothetical discussion on a subject if you don't believe it's true. Interesting.

And while “mambo the dogface you might like to banana patch” may be a senseless to you as "immaculate conception" you seem to miss the point, again, that this discussion was about what would happen if there WAS "immaculate conception."

For an educated, enlightened person, you're missing an awful lot of points. There's got to be a lot of low flying what-the-farks around your head about now.

quote Originally posted by Formula88:

It’s amazing the amount of mileage I’ve gotten out of my original six word post!

Please, carry on with your discussion of immaculate deception... I mean conception.

Absolutely done with stem cells.
"ducks and covers" "Incoming slurpies" " What are yall Nuns doing in here"

quote Originally posted by Patrick: It’s amazing the amount of mileage I’ve gotten out of my original six word post! Please, carry on with your discussion of immaculate deception... I mean conception.

Congratulations on your successful troll. You must be proud. Here's a (-) for your trouble.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Congratulations on your successful troll. You must be proud. Here's a (-) for your trouble.

Let’s see now... I originally posted six words which poked a little fun at the topic of this thread.

1) You first try and tell me who can and can’t post in this thread.

That didn’t work.

2) You then try and dazzle me with some mumbo-jumbo dogface banana nonsense.

That didn’t work.

3) You then try and question my political status.

That didn’t work.

4) So you then pull out all stops and give me a (-).

It must be terrible to be so insecure in your beliefs that you can’t tolerate someone trying to inject a little humour into a thread that you’re involved in.

I won’t give you a (-) in return over this because I only give them to cretins like Liquid-Reality who post tasteless, disgusting comments in threads such as This one and This one.

So sure, give me that (-) if you honestly feel I deserve it.

OK guys, "May I mambo dogface to the banana patch" is classic Steve Martin stand up. I really don't think Formula88 meant anything by it. I think it's funny how someone can say absolutely NOTHING and still get blasted for it.

Sheesh...

Okay...

Why would God need DNA?

Scripture says that God made Man in His own image. So, okay, with that, we can make a case that God has DNA.

On the other hand, why does an eternal being need DNA? Where would it have come from? Does God have PARENTS? Our sources don't say, but imply that there is just God.

So, God invented DNA as a way of enabling heredity. If you believe (as some do) that evolution was the way God created all the animals and plants and stuff on the earth, it even makes sense.

That established--that DNA is an invention of God--the rest is easy. Jesus could have had ANYONE's DNA. He didn't even have to have Mary's DNA; God could have created the zygote from nothing and implanted it. He could have just had Mary's ovum create a zygote (with whatever kinds of genes He wanted to specify!).

***

Interestingly enough, the Old Testament makes mention of "Nephilim"--the old Hebrew word translates best to "giants" but generally means the offspring of humans and angels--a hybrid with the free will of humans but some of the powers of angels (!) which sounds like a nasty combination.

And, in fact, one reason for the Flood was to wipe out the Nephilim; they were not nice. (Well, why should they be? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" after all.)

So, at least in the Old Testament days, humans and angels could interbreed...

Which means that angels use the same kind of genes we do, and that their DNA has to be remarkably similar to human DNA.

***

This is fun...

Ed

quote Which means that angels use the same kind of genes we do, and that their DNA has to be remarkably similar to human DNA.

This is a pretty fascinating line of reasoning. It then stands to reason that Satan is genetically compatible with humans since the story says he's a fallen angel. Why hasn't he created Giants since the bible was written? Maybe he has. Maybe Jesus was the antichrist... ironic, eh? hmmm...how tall is George Bush?

[This message has been edited by GT (edited 06-02-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: So sure, give me that (-) if you honestly feel I deserve it.

Actually, I didn't give you a (-) for this thread. I had already rated you (-) for something else.
But I would have anyway for being a troll. And like they say, it's the thought that counts.