[Mad Dawg]

The fact remains, if his flesh was only hers, Jesus would have been female. Obviously, God created the flesh of Jesus in Mary's womb.

The word "obvious" or "obviously" always get my attention.

It seems to me God could have reached in there and turned one X chromosome to a Y chromosome without adding anything to the "flesh" there. I'm not saying that happened, I'm just gunning for the "obviously".

My understanding (such as it is) of genetics in those days was that it was thought at least by some that the Mommy provided the stuff of which the child was made while the Daddy provided the sort of template. I've often wondered how they could maintain that in face of so many children looking like their mothers.

Modern genetics seems to make the Incarnation harder to understand, but then we never understood it much anyway. But I don't see how it is "necessary" for God to do anything more on the bio level than turn one 'X' into a 'Y'. SO I wouldn't say it's obvious that God created the flesh of Jesus any more than he did the flesh of any child. Or any less.

[MEGoody]

It seems to me God could have reached in there and turned one X chromosome to a Y chromosome without adding anything to the "flesh" there.

If God changed it, it was no longer just her flesh.

SO I wouldn't say it's obvious that God created the flesh of Jesus any more than he did the flesh of any child.

Well, the bible does say He knit us together in our mother's womb, so. . .