Did Jesus had a human Y-chromosome?

We believe Jesus was 100% God and 100% human. Humans share both genetic information from their biological parents (X and Y chromosomes). In the case of the standard male human, the component XY is manifested. In Jesus case, He got the X-chromosome from Mary… what about the Y-chromosome? What male genetic information he had since he was conceived without any male human input?

With God all things are possible.

Yes but doesn’t it follow, since He was 100% human, that He needed to have male human genetic information?

Yes, of course he did.

We know that He was conceived when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Logically, then, we’d presume that the Holy Spirit provided whatever was needed to create a human embryo.

It’s not a question of “whose Y chromosome?”, then, since there was no other human male involved in the conception.

It seems to me that, just as God can say, “Let there be light,” and there is light, God can say, “Let the Holy Spirit come upon Mary that she may conceive a son,” and it is done. Whatever needed to be there would spontaneously be there.

From where did Adam get his Y-chromosome? Yeah…

If you believe the story as written, I wouldn’t, then Yeshua didn’t have a Y chromosome. By extension Yeshua was not of the line of David seeing that he was not sired by one of the line…

With a non-literal interpretation, one can say from a father almost true human but not quite.

As for Jesus, I’m curious then if any modern scholar’s have given their input. (I’m guessing Aquinas doesn’t have anything on this.) It’s an intriguing question.

Yes. Exactly.

He was (indeed is) fully human. That means that his body has every aspect of human biology.

This is an interesting question…

I heard on the Miracle Hunter this past Sunday, on Relevant Radio, that when scientists ran tests on Eucharistic Miracles they found the tissue was human heart tissue WITHOUT DNA markers.

relevantradio.streamguys.us/MH%20Archive/MH20170319.mp3

Start this above recording at 9 minutes, 30 seconds when they start interviewing John Carpenter, author of the book Be Not Afraid to Follow the Footprints from Heaven.

You can get his book here: amzn.to/2n1GGn5 (I know I’m going to buy it)

At 12 minutes, 30 seconds the author who’s being interviewed mentions what he discovered regarding Eucharistic Miracles.

He mentioned that DNA comes from everyone before you, unless you are the Creator.

Listen until at least 15 minutes, 00 seconds (if not the whole thing… the interview is good and ends at 21 minutes 50 seconds).

Fascinating stuff!

But Mary was…

His maternal lineage is immaterial.

His identity of being “of the line of David” comes from his status of being a legal son of Joseph. It’s this (adoption) relationship to his human (step-)father that fulfills the prophecy.

The Bible does say that Jesus was descended from David by blood. Specifically in Romans.

Jesus descended by blood from David via the Blessed Mother and via legality via the adoption from St. Joseph.

God Bless

God tells us that he is our Father. He uses the analogy of Father to describe our relationship to him.

The ancients did not know of DNA and instead thought that the male simply put his seed into a women, who later gave birth. So their understanding of Fatherhood was that all people came from their Fathers only. That is why they traced the paternal lineage only. They did not know of female ovum, and that each person was in fact physically a combination of the Mother and Father. Since the ancients could not see female ovum but could see male sperm, that is what they thought was happening. People, they thought came from their Father’s only and were past down from Father to Father etc.

To the ancients then, if a virgin gave birth, then where did it come from? Without a father, there was no source of life as they understood it. So the virgin birth was miraculous to them since no Father placed his seed in her. There was no concept of female DNA and Y or X chromosomes for them. But your question would have been the same in ancient times as it is now.

They simply did not know that the female contributed (that missed that part) but they new that the male did. So they had half the picture right.

But your question is the same to them as it is to us. Where did Jesus get his ‘seed’, or from our point of view, where did he get his male portion of his embryo needed to make a person.

So the question is exactly the same as what they had to contemplate in ancient times, even though they did not have the biology.

The answer was revealed to them that the Holy Spirit was the Father. To them it means that he supplied the whole seed. For us it means he supplied half the seed.

This means that the Holy Spirit provided the material needed for Jesus to be born.

This means that the Holy Spirit was Jesus’ biological Father.

This was necessary since human fathers all had a lineage that included original sin. In order for Jesus to have genetic material that was not corrupted (what we know call genetic inheritance) Jesus needed a source of maternal DNA that was sinless (immaculate conception of Mary) but since there was no immaculate males, he needed an infusion of DNA from outside the human race. Any human source of paternal DNA would have been stained by original sin.

This only makes sense from a modern perspective where we know of both female and male DNA. God knew that, but we have to interpret the bible as being written by people who did not yet understand the biology involved.

Adam came from dust, where were the x and y? Eve came from Adams side, Why didn’t she have a Y instead of two x’s?

As someone stated earlier, Nothing is impossible with God.

You can even follow that same logic from an evolutionary standpoint, if we came from single celled organisms (asexual reproduction) as proposed, from the primordial soup where did the extra chromosomes come from?..you get the idea.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

You’re referring to Romans 1:3? That’s not what it says. Take a look:

*[God’s] Son, descended from David according to the flesh, but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. * (Romans 1:3-4)

What Paul is doing here is identifying who Jesus is. Looking from a human perspective – that is, “according to the flesh” – he’s a son of David. On the other hand, looking from a divine perspective – that is, “according to the spirit of holiness” – he’s the Son of God.

Paul isn’t talking about Mary here; he’s talking about Joseph – through whom, legally, through adoption, Jesus was a ‘son of David’.

Perhaps you might object, “but, Paul uses the word σπέρματος here! I mean, that’s literally “spermatos”! He’s talking about literal sperm!”. No, he’s not. Although the etymology of the English word sperm includes this particular Greek word, that isn’t the definition of the word in Greek. The Greek word σπέρματος means “seed”. But, isn’t that enough? Doesn’t that imply literal, physical sonship?

Nope. Look at Luke 1:55 – he uses the same Greek word to mean descendants: “according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever”.

So, Paul isn’t talking about literal physical relationship here. (And, even if he were, you’d still be in trouble, since no one in his time (let alone ours!) would have ever suggested that the mother provides the ‘seed’ for her children.)

In other words: Paul is talking about Jesus as a human son of David and a divine Son of God. :wink:

I’m not saying Jesus had a natural birth. I’m saying He is David’s Son by adoption and blood.

Summa Theologica — Saint Thomas Aquinas
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ’s father, as shown above ([4138]Q[28], A[1], ad 1,2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David.
Objection 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex.6. Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Lk.1:5,36. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Mat.1, it seems that Christ was not descended from David.

Objection 3: Further, it is written of Jechonias (Jer.22:30): “Write this man barren . . . for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David.” Whereas of Christ it is written (Is.9:7): “He shall sit upon the throne of David.” Therefore Christ was not of the seed of Jechonias: nor, consequently, of the family of David, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through Jechonias.

On the contrary, It is written (Rom.1:3): “Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh.”

Reply to Objection 1: Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not conceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew’s genealogy terminates. Augustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): “Since the same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary’s husband and that Christ’s mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of David: and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their hearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of the husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity.” For as Jerome says on Mat.1:18: “Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock.”

Reply to Objection 2: Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by God’s will, that the royal family was united to the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who was the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the tribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is therefore possible that Elizabeth’s father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary’s father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron.

Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary’s father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim’s mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David.

Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk.3:25, this prophetical passage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias. And so Christ is of his seed. Neither is the fact that Christ reigned contrary to prophecy, for He did not reign with worldly honor; since He declared: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Yes, Aquinas and Augustine said the same thing. Yes, they’re doctors of the Church. And yet, that doesn’t make their every utterance by definition a Church teaching.

In essence, what Augustine said (and Aquinas repeatedin ST III.31.2) was “we have no idea how it happened, but if the Bible says ‘of the seed’, then what it must mean is Mary is somehow related to Joseph!”

Now, on the face of it, there’s nothing wrong with that suggestion. But, that’s all it is – a suggestion. And, it’s based on an assumption that comes from a particular interpretation of a single passage from Romans.

Note, too, that in the body of his answer, Aquinas says nothing about the tangential question, but only of the question at hand which he’s addressing (that is, whether Christ is the son of David). Wise man… :wink:

Yep. I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree.

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.