[Alberta's Child]

If you accept that Almighty God can conceive by a virgin, then you must accept that He can give her the DNA necessary to have a Son. That DNA is not available to us to study, nor should it be, in my opinion.

Neither is the DNA of Mary, by the way. You can spend a billion years digging thousands of feet below the surface in every square inch of the Holy Land, and your odds of finding Mary's body in a tomb are no better than your odds of finding her Son's body in a tomb.

Hence, the doctrine of the Assumption.

I rest my case.

[Judith Anne]

Say, I believe we are in agreement on this.

I was simply addressing the DNA discussion.

[roamer_1]

You can spend a billion years digging thousands of feet below the surface in every square inch of the Holy Land, and your odds of finding Mary's body in a tomb are no better than your odds of finding her Son's body in a tomb. Hence, the doctrine of the Assumption. I rest my case.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 50 years ago, Troy was a myth, as was the Kingdom of David. Shall we assume, since we cannot find the bodies of the kings of Israel that they too were previously taken up? What of all the Prophets? What of all of the Apostles? Nicodemus? Simon the leper? Joseph of Arimethea? John the Baptist? Mary Magdalene?

There is a VERY long list of players in the salvation message. There are a very few whose graves are discovered, and most of those are in contention. There is nothing marvelous in the lack of Mary's tomb. You rest your case upon *nothing*.