College girl proves the assumption of Mary using science

I think we have a new star Catholic apologist in the making. I don’t know if her argument holds up, but 10 out of 10 for innovation:

youtube.com/watch?v=ToU0igV0kSA

Fantastic.
God bless her.

Keep her name in your list of bookmarks.

A physical approach similar to the idea in Munificentissimus Deus 26 that she is the new ark (Psalm 131:8 “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified”).

Interesting scientific approach. She has given me something to look into. Will have to remember her, she might become a great apologist some day.

Very interesting but I have a couple comments.

  1. She links to this blog which says the same thing. It is written by another woman. A college girl making a video talking about a blog post she read is not the same as the college girl proving anything. I did enjoy the video though.

  2. from the blog:
    "The Bible says that God would not allow His Holy One, His Son to suffer corruption–so He ascended into Heaven instead of decomposing in the grave (see Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:31). Wouldn’t this apply to ALL OF HIS SON, every last All-Holy and All-Divine cell? Even those parts of Him that were–actually, physically–still on earth…in the body of His Blessed Mother? Yet another reason for her glorious Assumption into Heaven as a fitting gift for bearing the Savior of the world in "

For the bolded to be consistent, that would mean Jesus’ foreskin after being circumcised, every drop of blood shed and flesh ripped off during the scourging at the pillar, blood from his crowning of thorns, any cuts/scraps he got when he fell on the way to his crucifixion, blood from the nails in his hands and feet and being stabbed in the side would have been assumed into heaven. I have never heard anyone claim that before.

Sorry if this seems like I am poo pooing the idea, I am not. It is fascinating to read and I did enjoy the video.

Don’t forget hair, skin, nails, etc. Whatever is lost throughout life…

Good point. The placenta itself would have had Jesus’ cells, the umbilical cord after it dried up and fell off, baby teeth… the list goes on.

Well, the blog’s author never intended her theory to be “proof” of anything. To state more than the author does herself doesn’t help the case.

As for every cell of Jesus’ body ascending into heaven meaning that Mary’s body would have to do the same is really reaching, IMHO. It’s a lovely thought that Jesus’ baby cells remained in Mary, etc. but I think this is taking it too far.

Also, we could say that every cell of Jesus’ body which he possessed upon his death ascended into heaven, but those still in Mary’s body obviously didn’t or she’d have suffered them being ripped from her body, unless one wants to make the case that it was done supernaturally, for which there is no theological or scientific evidence. Never mind all the cells Jesus lost over the course of his life from accident, his passion, and natural development.

Better to argue that it was fitting that the New Eve take her place at the side of the New Adam in heaven, for that is what Mary is. Or using the Queen Mother typology of her taking her place at the side of her Son, King of Heaven and Earth. But I think this cells of the baby theory is too full of holes for good theology let alone stand up to any kind of scientific scrutiny.

I give both the blog author and the college girl marks for imaginative thinking and typological aptitude, but none for scientific discovery.

I think the girl’s argument could still hold up (though of course it’s not necessary to believe her argument to believe in the assumption). The cells you are referring to are dead cells that are lost as a normal part of life. The cells that she is talking about are living cells of Jesus actually functioning within the body of Mary. Not sure if it makes a difference or not but just wanted to point out that distinction!

There was recent research done about infant DNA cells being present in the mothers’ bodies decades after birth…

The reason why much of the research has focused on microchimerism stemming from males, he explained, is because of the ease in measurement. In blood samples, male Y chromosomes stand out among a woman’s XX. By comparison, finding a daughter’s genetically distinct cells in a mother is expensive and difficult because the chromosomes are all XX. Detecting microchimerism in men is also a challenge, because the female X chromosomes are hard to differentiate from the male XY. (Microchimerism is probably more frequent in women, because pregnancy is a natural avenue for transferring cells, but individuals may also pick up genetically distinct DNA after an organ transplant or transfusions, or in utero if they had a twin.)

**Just a little scientific data to chew on… it’s real…

for those cells to have died in the first place, wouldn’t that mean they would have suffered corruption?

Its an interesting argument but I don’t think it holds up very well.

Edit: scratch the above argument. Jesus Died but did not suffer corruption so that is a bad argument to make.

All it can do is add some “fittingness” to the Assumption, and not very much at that. These cells are obviously not part of the integral Jesus.

What is their status while Christ is in the tomb? Do they mean He didn’t entirely die? What about while Mary is in the tomb (if you take this opinion, which is the older and more likely one)? Did Christ die again? Are they glorified when He is risen?

Lots of problems.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.