How so? The Spirit added the equivalent of male human DNA to join with Mary's egg so that she "conceived". No sex was involved. How is this inconsistent with your set-up?
The only way that Christ could have ended up with both sets of Mary's DNA signature is by using her existing flesh (or bone or hair, or any part of her body (a product of her mothers' and her father's DNA, and not her egg).
I agree. I'm not saying that I think that Jesus was some kind of weird male clone of Mary. He wasn't. I think He was FULLY human which means having the "normal" DNA structure, which was supplied by both Mary and the Spirit. My opinion is that it was God's version of some sort of supernatural artificial insemination.
Knowing all this, insisting on His birth being "natural" is just plain naïve, in sharp contrast to His appearance and incarnation in Mary's body.
You appear to hold the view that "Jesus the fetus" (sounds like a name for a Dave Barry rock band :) just popped into Mary's womb independent of any biological interaction with any part of Mary at all. That could be correct. I don't think the scriptures are clear enough for me to declare my view as a fact. However, as I have elsewhere posted, I think there is some scripture that supports my scenario and does allow for the pregnancy and birth to have been "normal". Given the importance of literal blood lines to the Jews of the time, how do you deal with the lineage requirement?
I know a boy who died today, who was homozygous recessive for a certain gene. He was 17 years old. In spite of his condition, he was fully human, even though his genetic defect did not allow him fully to express his human nature. (Say a pray for him and his family, if you would; he is with the angels and saints now, and happier than he has been in a long, long time.)
It is reductionistic to equate human nature with a having a certain set of genes or chromosomes. That is why all this speculation about Jesus's DNA is silly. Jesus took his human nature from Mary. That's all we know. From that, we can deduce nothing about the DNA of Jesus. Human nature per se is at a deeper ontological level than the information and arrangement of DNA, even though human nature is manifested in that information and arrangement. Human nature is not *reducible* to that information and arrangement.
-A8
So, then, Christ is a product of divine and human "genetics?" You are actually suggesting that Mary's DNA (halpoid ovum) genetically fused with the "genetic equivalent" of a divine male [?] DNA (divine "sperm," a "haploid") to produce a mixture of divine and human, a demigod!
I don't really see how using a haploid affects things either. Mary's DNA provided the human part; unless, the concern is that there would be no Y chromasome coming from Mary, being female. Of course, considering that this is a miraculous event, providing Jesus a Y Chromasome would be no problem if making him a male human is an issue. The Holy Spirit did not place a baby in Mary's womb. The Holy Spirit created a baby through Mary.
Now, as to using Mary, God could have incarnated himself without human agency at all. However, He wouldn't have because the purpose for using Mary is to fulfill his promises to David in Scripture. The Messiah had to be a blood descendent of David. I think that is what you are getting at with the lineage question isn't it? Or have I misunderstood what the debate is about?