Replies

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 prayer 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.)

Prayers are sent, and I am very sorry to hear about this.

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.

I haven't been arguing that Jesus' human nature is dependent on having Mary's DNA. God "COULD" have zapped a baby into Mary's womb with a human nature, but no human blood related to anyone else. I just don't personally think it happened that way for the other reasons stated in the discussion, the lineage requirements, and the fact that it would have been totally unnecessary to do it that way, when a perfectly viable, more genuine option was available. We have seen lots of scripture that tends toward the way my side has described it. I can't think of much that I have seen so far toward the "Immaculate Incubator" theory. Does the Church teach this as dogma? From what you have said, I don't think that can be. So, why not take the view that leans more toward direct scripture?

Mary was the true genetic parent of Jesus, linking him to human lineage all the way back through David to Abraham and to Adam and Eve . He wasn't just "carried" by her; He "took flesh," derived His body and blood from her, and whatever that might mean in genetic and embryological terms.

If by "Immaculate Incubator" you mean the proposition that Mary was merely a gestational device, this is a very grave error.

Am I adequately addressing your point? Or have I missed something?