The blood of Jesus... comes from Mary?

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Hi There.

I am an antiochian orthodox cristian from Brazil and at orkut.com we had a discussion with some Roman Catholics and one Coptic orthodox.

The creed says "and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary". What this exactly means?

This means that Jesus's Body was generated by the Holy Spirity and it only developed into Mary or this means that the Holy Spirity fecundated Mary or Jesus took all human nature from Mary?

I personaly believe that this is a mistery, but I prefer the first interpretation. But, some roman catholic believe in the third and even say that Jesus, as humam, is a "clone" of Mary but only with different sex.

But the coptic one said that Holy Spirit fecundated Mary and so 50% of the genetic code of Jesus came from Mary. Also a roman catholic seminarist said that this is the official view of his church.

I am not personaly confortable with this view, just like Mary was not a true virgyn and looks like a blasfem against Holy Spirity, but they say, without genetics, she is not the true mother of God.

What is the official position of the Orthodox Church? And what do you think about this different interpretations?

Thank you very much!

[Timothy Richardson]

It would take a living saint to answer this question with our modern understanding of conception using terms like "genetic code" and "clone" because the Church Fathers worked from a completely different understanding of human biology. Any attempt to do so in this forum would be foolish at best. It is only possible to present the teachings of the Church concerning the person of Jesus Christ without any modern scientific terms or substantive references to modern biology. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt there will be any coherent synthesis of modern science and Orthodox theology in my lifetime. As a result Orthodoxy is seriously limited in its ability to speak to our society on this level. It should be pointed out however that science is completely unable to speak to our society on the level of the human soul and its relationship to God.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

One of the deep and wonderful mysteries of our Church.

Ever Pure, Ever Virgin, but NO Immaculate Conception as understood by Latin Dogma, formulated, and finalized (cf. Bull of Pope Pius IX).

"When those who censured the immaculate life of the Most Holy Virgin had been rebuked, as well as those who denied Her Ever-Virginity, those who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, and those who disdained Her icons - then when the glory of the Mother of God had illuminated the whole universe, there appeared a teaching which seemingly exalted the Virgin Mary, but in reality DENIED ALL HER VIRTUES. (Capitals are mine.)

"This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of Rome. The teaching is this: that 'the All-Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin'.

"In other words, the Mother of God at Her very conception was preserved from original sin and by the grace of God, was placed in a state where it was impossible for Her to have personal sins." St. John Maximovitich, 'The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God'

So for present day Roman Catholics who MUST believe the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there is no need of science or genetic codes. It is clear and simple.

Of what value to humanity is the Virgin Mary when she is placed 'by special grace' OUTSIDE the fullness of human nature which includes the inheritance and the fall of Adam and Eve?

Where is the salvation of humankind brought forth by Her Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Latin Dogma sadly is tainted to the extreme with Sacred Hearts, Co-Redemptorists, Co-Sufferers, too much emphasis on the humanity of Jesus to the negation of His Divinity and all the rest of their 'devotions.' A sad story indeed.

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

The trouble started with a saint basil's passage that reads "Jesus got the body from our Lady".

[Alec Lowly]

Father, bless ...

Would you agree that it's safe and acceptable to say that the Lord received His divinity from His Father (procession) and His humanity from His mother (incarnation)?

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinnet

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

But in this case woudn't Jesus have the original sin, as Mary? And also we call Jesus as a new Adam.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Strapasson,

Thank you for this discussion on what Christ received from Mary, which is wonderfully pertinent. I look forward to the continued discussion.

Firstly, a few reflections based on some of the comments already posted:


It is only possible to present the teachings of the Church concerning the person of Jesus Christ without any modern scientific terms or substantive references to modern biology.

With respect to Mr Richardson's sentiments in his post (his no. 8, above), I'm not certain this conclusion is correct. It seems to me safer to say that caution must be used when employing such terms and contexts, so that specific remarks and commentary from fathers, who were not dealing in these contexts, are not simply transferred over to modern-day terminologies -- nearly always a hideously distorting practice. For example, a second-century writer such as Irenaeus of Lyons does in fact speak in 'biological' terms of generation; but this is not equatable to modern genetic concepts without substantial clarification. So too Augustine of Hippo, who speaks of seminal transmission of character traits via procreation, but does not mean by that transmission precisely what we mean today by genetic inheritance -- though there are similarities. I think caution is more appropriate than disavowal.


Ever Pure, Ever Virgin, but NO Immaculate Conception as understood by Latin Dogma, formulated, and finalized (cf. Bull of Pope Pius IX).

I'm not entirely certain how the matter of immaculate conception relates to the original question at all, which was not about the state of soul/body of the Mother of God, but distinctly about the matter of the flesh/body of Christ, and to what degree this 'came from' Mary (cf. the quotation from Basil of Caesarea, offered earlier in the thread). This seems to be a latent concern from elsewhere, thrust onto the original question which had more to do with the Christological question of Christ's humanity and its source -- not that the two concepts are wholly separated. Still, it's easy to let a question on one topic turn into a discussion on another. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif (As an aside, I believe we've had some extensive discussion on the question of 'immaculate conception' in previous threads, which might be rekindled. I'd only re-state here my general sentiment that the rather-too-frequent diatribes against the Roman Catholic doctrine -- however flawed it may be -- tend not to understand what the RC church means by it. And also to re-state, from various comments in previous discussions, that 'Co-Redemptorist' and 'Co-Sufferers' are entirely Orthodox concepts.)

In relation to the original question, the teaching of the fathers is quite clear that Christ takes his humanity from the Virgin. This resounds again and again, especially in the writings of the fathers from the first five centuries, where this question was often raised. The specific idea that the Holy Spirit somehow created Christ's humanity apart from Mary and instilled it in her, was explicitly addressed by various writers in the second century (e.g. the same Irenaeus already mentioned, who characterised this concept as that of 'Christ passing through Mary, as water passes through a tube'), and rejected wholesale - on grounds that this negated any reality to the birth in its entirety. There is no virginal birth, nor any birth; simply a passage or delivery - nothing is begotten, nothing generated.

The reason the early fathers spoke so strongly against this lies in the whole sense of incarnation and relation. If the Son 'becomes flesh and dwells among us, as St John declares, then the 'becoming flesh' is part of Christ's soteriological work - part of his work as Saviour. St Gregory of Nazianzus stressed the importance of this in his famous axiom against Apollinarius, that 'what is unassumed is unhealed', which is an important insight into the words of Hebrews, that 'he was like us in all ways, save sin'. The 'being like us', that is, the incarnate Son's human-ness, is not just a show-piece or a mode of revelation: it is the means by which he saves that which he assumes. So Christ must assume real humanity, authentic and full humanity, if he is to join this to himself, thus sanctifying and saving it.

As such, it would in theory have been possible for Christ's humanity to have been created 'divinely', separate from the mode of generation common to all human creatures since Adam, and simply 'injected' into human history - but this would have been for him to be a different kind of humanity than you or I. What relation would he then have to the race of man, of Adam? It is here that the importance of the generation from Mary becomes so significant: it is in this human birth, in his inheritance from his mother of the same humanity shared by all, the same inherited from Adam, that Christ assumes my humanity unto salvation.

You then ask:


But in this case woudn't Jesus have the original sin, as Mary? And also we call Jesus as a new Adam.

The question here is really, where does sin reside? If it is in the nature of humanity, then yes, this would be the logical conclusion. But the early fathers were quite clear, sin is not residual to nature -- to the very fabric of what it means to be human -- but to the condition of human economy before God. Sin is disobedience; the epidemic of sin is disobedience made custom, custom become second-nature, second-nature becoming more inset and dominant than authentic nature. But authentic nature remains.

To call Christ 'new Adam' really only has meaning in direct connection to the 'old Adam'. He is Adam renewed, not Adam replaced.

INXC, Matthew

[Efthymios]

The Definition of the
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

[Alex Haig]

Sorry I haven't got any sources for this but it's what I've picked up from various people in discussion with them.

Whilst for children it is okay to explain that God is Christ's Father and Mary His Mother this is not completely accurate. Christ is the Son of the Father but His divinity has no Mother, likewise He is the Son of Mary but His humanity has no Mother.

As for His DNA I don't think the Fathers have commented! But it would seem natural to state that His DNA comes completely from Mary. How this happens? The answer is in the Mystery of the Incarnation.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Alex wrote:


likewise He is the Son of Mary but His humanity has no Mother.

Perhaps you meant to write, "but His humanity has no father"?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alex Haig]

Yes - that one slipped through the net, many thanks Father.

Alex

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

But is there any official position? Thank you!

P.S. Today I was recived into Orthodox Church by Crismation!

[Timothy Richardson]

The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon is the official position. Unfortunately for this discussion there were no biologists on the council so I'm sticking with my position that any discussion of this issue in terms of biology would be foolish at best.

[Arsenios]

Jose writes:


"Today I was recived into Orthodox Church by Crismation!"

Glory to God!

What wonderful news!

Many years, Jose!
Rdr. Arsenios

[Timothy Richardson]

The Definition of Chalcedon consists of four negatives: without mixture and without change (against the Monophysites); indivisibly and inseparably (against Nestorius). “They encompass, apophatically, the mystery of the Incarnation, but forbid us to imagine the “why” … We cannot conjecture … “how” the divine and the human coexisted in the same person.” Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology An Introduction, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989, pp 98-99.

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Well, thank you all very much!http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Alec Lowly]

Many years, Jose! God bless you!

Alec Lowly

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Here's a quote from the Tome of St. Leo that I think is relevant:

Isaiah's prophecy also he might have grasped by a closer attention to what he says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is interpreted "God with us." And the same prophet's words he might have read faithfully. "A child is born to us, a Son is given to us, whose power is upon His shoulder, and they shall call His name the Angel of the Great Counsel, Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the age to come." And then he would not speak so erroneously as to say that the Word became flesh in such a way that Christ, born of the Virgin's womb, had the form of man, but had not the reality of His mother's body. Or is it possible that he thought our Lord Jesus Christ was not of our nature for this reason, that the angel, who was sent to the blessed Mary ever Virgin, says, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore that Holy Thing also that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God," on the supposition that as the conception of the Virgin was a Divine act, the flesh of the conceived did not partake of the conceiver's nature? But that birth so uniquely wondrous and so wondrously unique, is not to be understood in such wise that the properties of His kind were removed through the novelty of His creation. For though the Holy Spirit imparted fertility to the Virgin, yet a real body was received from her body; and, "Wisdom building her a house," "the Word became flesh and dwelt in us," that is, in that flesh which he took from man and which he quickened with the breath of a higher life.

Hope this helps!

[Patrick Walsh]

Fathers, Bless. And Greetings to all.

Well, I will wade into this discussion just a few inches. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif First of all, Jose, I am blind and wich to welcome you to those that truly see, those of the Orthodox Faith.

Second. To say that the DNA comes entirely from Mary is basically to say that Christ is a clone of Mary, which borders on blasphemy if said in complete cognizance of the implications of that statement.

I once watched a documentary on Christ on the History Channel. The person was a genetic archaeologist. His study sampled several hundred remains of first century residents of Jerusalem and Palestine, and put together a composite of what a typical first century Jew would look like.

The result was a rather short person of squarish face, with a nose significantly larger in relation to his face than for Caucasions, and a rather solid, massive jawline, but close-chinned. They compared this image to the icons of Christ which we see today, and the comparision is very striking. Christ appears to have a rather longish, narrow face with a high forehead and a pointed chin relative to the typical first century Jew. There was very little resemblance between the two faces.

The conclusion that they came to was that the icons bear little resemblance to how Christ actually appeared. I immediately went into paroxysm of hysterical laughter, since they made a rather crude assumption--that the DNA of Christ was that of a first century Jew, ie. the Virgin Mary.

It takes two sets of genes to create a human being. Further the woman only provides a Y-gene. It takes an X-gene to create a male, who has an XY-pair of genes. (The "X" and "Y" show the general shape of a specific gene in the sequence for a human being. A YY-pair creates a female.) The man provides either a "Y" or and "X" gene, and it is the man's contribution which determines the gender of the child. So if both sets of genes came from Mary, the child would have been female, sans ex deus machina.

The Holy Spirit must have provided the X-gene to complete the pair in the sequence that created Christ in the womb. The means of this conception is pure and holy, and is one of the great mysteries of the Incarnation. And the Holy Spirit is NOT a first century Jew, so it is not conclusively plausible to expect Christ to look like a first century Jew. Possible, but not conclusive. By this I mean, that if Christ does not look like a first century Jew, there is no reason to reject the Virgin Mary as his Mother because of the genes provided by the Holy Spirit.

This is just my personal thoughts on this matter, much of which formed at the instant I heard the "findings" of that show on the History channel.

There was another question, "Did the blood of Christ come from Mary?" I am not so sure about this, but this seems to call into the equation the notions of conception prevalent in Eastern religions, especially those of a Tantric nature. They hold that mingling of the woman's mentrual blood with the white substance from the male is the moment of conception. This is an erroneous understanding of the menstruation, which is a sign of ovulation, not the ovulus itself.

Patrick

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Patrick,


It takes two sets of genes to create a human being. Further the woman only provides a Y-gene. It takes an X-gene to create a male, who has an XY-pair of genes. (The "X" and "Y" show the general shape of a specific gene in the sequence for a human being. A YY-pair creates a female.) The man provides either a "Y" or and "X" gene, and it is the man's contribution which determines the gender of the child. So if both sets of genes came from Mary, the child would have been female, sans ex deus machina.

I think a woman's genes are "XX" , not "YY". A man does have the "XY" combination, and you are right that the determining gene can only be provided by the father, women always providing one "X" gene.

Regarding the program on the history channel, I've seen the image resulting from the research, which became quite a news item. I agree that the face of Christ need not have looked like a typical first-century Jew, although if He looked strikingly different from His contemporaries, no particular mention of this is made in Scripture. Whatever he looked like, I'm sure the dignity of His spirit would have been apparent in His holy face.

Regarding this research, I have mixed feelings about it as a Christian. On the one hand, I think it is useful for those who would make Jesus look white / Anglo-Saxon to be reminded that is not what He was according to the flesh; on the other hand, the selfsame people could then use the research to turn around and say or think "well, what have we to do with a first-century Jew anyway?", basically meaning "I always knew Christianity was a Jewish importation into Aryan culture". Again, there are no absolutes; there is probably also a good reason for assuming Jesus looked like "everyman", and that whatever particular racial group he incarnated in, he was nevertheless fully human in a universal sense, alien to none - and no racial group is in fact alien to another, all can mix. God chose the Jews out of all nations to proclaim Him, and sent His anointed Son as one fully human Jew, Jesus, the also fully Divine Word. God surely has His reasons for choosing Israel and the Jewish people to reach out to all others. Far be it from me to comment on this mystery. However, I think it's nevertheless safe to assume that, from our limited human perspective it can be quite beneficial to assume that God might as well have chosen the Chinese, the American Indians, the Anglo-Saxons, anybody, and we would still have the same reasons to be grateful; for in Christ there is ultimately neither Jew nor Greek.

Apart from these reservations, the research also seems to assume Christ was exclusively human, whereas you are quite right that is not the Christian understanding. I am not a biologist, but I would be keen to know from those with a relevant background whether the DNA theory is an incontestable fact, and whether research of the sort which produced this image of Jesus is also totally incontestable as a scientific procedure.

In Christ
Byron

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> "but I would be keen to know from those with a relevant background whether the DNA theory is an incontestable fact, and whether research of the sort which produced this image of Jesus is also totally incontestable as a scientific procedure. " Byron is quite correct. The norm is that a man has an X and Y chromosomes for sex gene make up and the woman has two XX chromosomes for the sex genes....That is NORMALLY. However, there are cases where this is not true. When I was an undergraduate student one of my physiology professors used to tell us "if you want the facts and only the facts watch Drag Net on TV because there are no absolute facts, hard and dry in the biological sciences " (this was during the days of Jack Webb and the TV program titles "Drag Net" (I can still hear the theme : "The story you are about to see is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent." and the music would play "dum te dum dum..dummmm") . Any way, there are documented cases in certain families where in the male the genetic make up has no determinable Y chromosome. ! Yet the guys are still guys! The guys all have XX sex chromosomes; and they are fertile and capable to reproduce "normal" babies of either sex. Yes there are no absolutes in biology. This is why I have very little tolerance for paleontologists who often times forget to tell us that most if not all of what they tell is nothing more than pure conjecture. We have problems understanding how living cell operate; living beings, that are right in front of us under the scope. How can paleontology be anything more than pure conjecture? Paleontology is the study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organism.. I.e., they are DEAD. So how can any9one make absolute statements about anything dead when we can't always do that with living forms??. Yesterday (really, not too many months ago) some geneticists were reporting that we have uncovered the human genome and will soon be able to discover all there is to know about how we work and what ales us...BUT GUESS WHAT? Now science is realizing that what we thought to be "nonsense" genes; genes that were somehow residual of things past and no longer functional are being discovered to have some very great importance.; but how and what or why has yet to be discovered! Lastly, when I was in graduate school we thought that there were only four infectious agents that cause disease (viruses; bacteria; protozoa and fungi.) Everyone was quite sure this was true. But since I graduated two other very different infectious agents have been discovered; prions and viroids. A prion is a protein infectious agent that can replicate in your system and can be quite deadly though it has no genetic make up! NO GENES AT ALL. And once infected there is NOTHING known to man that can stop the disease progress. One of these is called bovine encephalopathy (mad cow disease). Viroids are the agents of certain plant "blights" such as tomato blight. Vasilis

[Timothy Richardson]

I was hoping that Gilbert Gandenberger’s posting of an excerpt from St. Leo’s Tome would serve as a nice ending to this tread. Unfortunately we are again speaking of Jesus’ chromosomes. Since such speculation will lead us no where, I’d like to point us back to St. Leo. The beauty of his Tome and its terminology lies not in any attempt to explain the mystery of the union of divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ, but in its ability to simply “reintroduce the common sense of the Bible, in which Jesus appeared clearly as both God and Man.” (John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975, pp 24-25) The reason why Leo’s Tome was accepted by the council of Chalcedon, even though it was opposed as Nestorian by the more conservative supporters of Cyril, was that it reintroduced into the rather complex Christological debates of the 5th century a humble acceptance of the mystery of the incarnation as revelation to the Church in scripture. With it the Fathers were able to lay down a foundation for the Orthodox doctrine of salvation. This doctrine of salvation is of course the whole point of the Christological debates. The biology is irrelevant and can serve as nothing better than a distraction.

[Alec Lowly]

Prayers in Preparation for Holy Communion:

Prayer of St. Simeon Metaphrastes:

O only pure and incorruptible Lord, because of the unspeakable mercy of The love for mankind, Thou didst take to Thyself ~our entire human composition by the pure blood of the Virgin~ who gave birth to Thee beyond nature ...

[Kosta]

Jesus is not a clone of Mary that much we can all agree. A clone is an exact replica but with a different soul. Jesus was fully man as scripture teaches the Logos became flesh. This flesh was of Mary. But Jesus being a male proves that he isnt a clone of Mary. As far as whether the Holy Spirit gave the male genes or if the Holy Spirit was responsible for his human soul has not been revealed, its is a mystery.

[M.C. Steenberg]

A clone is an exact replica but with a different soul.

Is it?

INXC, Matthew

[Kosta]

yes, cloning is an identical twin in the truest sense of the word (SAME EXACT GENOME). If one clones the same individual they would be homoousios physically but not in personality. Barring polution and possible other external contaminants. a person cloned from a 50 year old would look the same as the 50 year old did at a given age.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

yes, cloning is an identical twin in the truest sense of the word (SAME EXACT GENOME). If one clones the same individual they would be homoousios physically but not in personality. Barring polution and possible other external contaminants. a person cloned from a 50 year old would look the same as the 50 year old did at a given age.


I admit I had not thought about Matthew's question before.

It is a central Orthodox teaching that both body and soul are inseparable aspects of the individual person.

As such then the physical aspect of the person would also always express this uniqueness.

I'm no expert on cloning and DNA. But physical expression within natural limits is far more fluid than some think. So I strongly suspect fundamental mistakes are being made in this area of research due to short-sightedness.

As we know the body reflects the soul and to some extent the spiritual state of the person. This understanding though overturns the whole physical cause & effect that many believe in. Very recently for example I have begun to hear from some scientists that the so-called genetic links to or causes of behaviour may actually be the effects of behaviour. Interesting to think about.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

for all your answers.

P.S.I was unabble to read all of this. I created another account. Hope there is no problem

[John Charmley]

St. Cyril of Alexandria's words seem to have some relevance here:

' the Only Begotten Word, even though he was God and born from God by nature, the radiance of the glory, and the exact image of the being of the one who begot him, (Heb. 1:3) he it was who became man. He did not change himself into flesh; he did not ensure any mixture, or blending, or anything else of this kind. But he submitted himself to being emptied and for the sake of the honour that was set before him he counted the shame as nothing (Heb. 12:2) and did not disain the poverty of human nature. As God he wished to make that flesh which was held in the grip of sin and death evidently superior to sin and death. He made it his very own, and not soulless as some have said, but rather animated with a rational soul, and thus he restored flesh to what it was in the beginning.'

On the Unity of Christ, SVS 1995 pp. 54-5

In Christ

John