I don,t understand, why is Aguest so up set?
Who did jesus look like, his mom or his dad?
I licked this thread. Now it is mine, all mine!
*Relevant comment: Jesus did not look like a Siberian Husky. ^^^
zeb, it is more of a theological question. If Jesus had any of his mother's DNA, wouldn't it have passed on the imperfection? Therefore, what would Jesus have looked like?
in the bible mother's don't pass on DNA. if they give birth to a boy, they're unclean for like 2 weeks, if they give birth to a girl, they're unclean for about 4 weeks (from memory, time span may differ, but it's about double the time for girls than for boys).
what if JC was a girl?
Its not that Im so much interest in what he looked like as I am his DNA make up. Would Jesus's appearance give us an idea of what God looks like since it takes 2 sets of dna to have a child. Consider the science behind this idea of immaculate conception. Maybe mary was a hussy. In any case, how would he genetically exist with only one set of alleles?
The blood on the Sudarium has been identified as human, and as type AB. There is very little blood actually remaining on the shroud. It is degraded, and most of it has been replaced by bacteria and fungi. However, Dr Baima Ballone has analysed samples taken from the cloth with adhesive tape, and reported that the blood on the shroud is also type AB. Interestingly, type AB is quite rare in Europe and most of the world, at of the 3.2% of population. However it is quite common (18%) among Jews from Northern Palestine. If these stains are Jesus' blood, does that indicate that Jesus had a biological father? Well, not if you believe in the miracle of the virgin birth as presented in the gospels. Apart from the Y sex chromosome, all of Jesus' genetic material would have come from his mother Mary. The gene for blood type is not on the Y chromosome, and therefore came from Mary, who also would have blood type AB.
She does not value intellectual debate or any debate. IMO.
The early Jerusalem Christans had James, often referred to as Jesus twin-brother or believed to be Joseph's son by a prior marriage. There was clearly a close famiial relationship. He plays a minor character in the gospels but a huge role in Acts and Paul's letters. James, rather than Peter, appears dominant. His family felt Jesus was not fulfilling his famiial responsibilities. Perhaps James was converted after Jesus' crucixion.
The first generation would have seen Jesus in the flesh under many years. In James' case, he would have known Jesus for Jesus' entire life. I believe the lack of physical appearance is not accidental. Christ has reached much further than Jesus ever did. I do believe our expectations would be upset.
The early Church triumphed over the Gnostics for several reasons. Gnostics did not believe in the physicality of Jesus. In their view, he was only an apparition, a false image. Everyone could become wise as Jesus through gnosis. Paul preached the physicality of Jesus. Jesus was not mere form to him. One can read the beginning of Incarnation theory in Paul. Churches also tend to emphasize certain scriptures,, the ones we find comfy and nice, over the apocalyptic and radical.
Every time an angel appears, humans are warned not to be afraid as the first statement. Christ transcends an individual person. When you think of his DNA, though, or any matter that science has dramatically changed since first century beleifs, you face problems with traditional doctrine and beliefs. If you think about it too much, your faith can be challenged. I find it no accident that Jesus' physical appearance is not stressed. The church that wrote the gospels did not believe his appearance mattered. We are curious. Also, the most important element of Jesus in term of belief is Christology. Jesus never clearly states that he is the son of man. The words are placed in the mouths of other actors. So Christains have tortured and killed each other for centuries over matter that neither Jesus nor his earliest followers made important.
Apart from the Y sex chromosome, all of Jesus' genetic material would have come from his mother Mary. The gene for blood type is not on the Y chromosome, and therefore came from Mary, who also would have blood type AB.
Okay. I may have this wrong, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable will correct me if I'm wrong.
First, mother and father both pass on on an allele for blood type. The dominate type will determine the type of the child (father's do have an x chromosome)
So if father passes B and mother passes A then the child will be AB---this works the other way around too.
There must be two alleles to have AB. A and B are codominant, so that's how that happens.
Now---if Jesus had type AB, then one allele came from father, and one came from mother. Arguing that he had type AB kind of makes the existence of that other allele necessary. AB are not attached to one allele, but are the merging of two separate alleles.
So if that blood type is correct, then EITHER Mary contributed TWO alleles---which goes against all nature. OR she was either type A, type B or type AB, and passed either A or B on, to be met by a father that was the same and passed the opposing type. So are we saying that God passed on one of those alleles?
Don't know if that made any sense, but it's the best I can do.
The Y chromosome is passed down exclusively from father to son, all male humans
MtDNA mutations are also passed down relatively unchanged from generation to generation; so all humans share the same mtDNA-types, the logical extension of this is that all humans ultimately trace back to one woman, who is commonly referred to as Mitochondrial Eve. Both females and males inherit their Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) only from their mother. This line of biological inheritance, therefore, stops with each male. Consequently, Y-DNA is more commonly used by the general public for tracing genetic heritage.[23
The gene for blood type is not on the Y chromosome, and therefore came from Mary, Mary herself must have been AB and passed both alleles
AB blood is co-dominant