Proof that we’re all just a game of Sims for the big guy, if you use a cheat to impregnate your sim by itself the offspring is a clone of the original but of the opposite sex.
I think Jesus’ DNA was 98% chimpanzee.
Your DNA is 98% chimpanzee.
There was a big fad for cloning Jesus novels a few years back. I never read any and never will, so I don’t know what they did with the DNA. Presumably it had to be like human DNA for a clone to grow, but who knows? Try searching for them and see what solutions they gave.
There are only two realistic answers to this question, though. One is DtC’s and the other is “anything you want.”
Jesus inhabited a completely human body.
You need to ask Paul of Tarsus about that. 
Yes it does. Thanks for playing.
Damn, beat me to it.
However, that does mean that, aside from the questionable claim of the Shroud of Turin, He did leave DNA behind to potentially be analyzed - hair clippings (unless he was a Nazirate, like Samson, quite probable per Biblical scholars), fingernail clippings, and, per the verse, a foreskin.
We need to find the Holy Prepuce! Let’s form another Crusade!
Or she had mosaicism.
I’m atheist, so I don’t believe all that nonsense in the first place; just carrying on the argument for fun
Well said.
I know. But some of us are more chimpy than others.
Way to take the fun out of it. I was hoping to start a series of Jesus/Chimp jokes.
Okay, I have no idea what they could be but I had faith in the Dopers to come up with something.
No need to. It has already been found a dozen times
Oooooooooooooooh.
I say the reason why Jesus is born of a woman is because of the associated Isaiah prophecy, and fitting the whole concept that Jesus is human. If he is formed directly by God, he’s either an angel, or a new species. Even when he makes Eve, God has to use at least part of a human.
And, yes, I know that other people interpret the Isaiah prophecy differently, and that Jesus’ backstory was retconned to fit. I’m just pointing out that not understanding omnipotence doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it.
BTW, where’d you get the spelling Jehova? I know that ה(H) is usually not pronounced as /h/ at the end of words, but I’ve never seen a transliteration that did not include it
’
Immaculate.
Don’t you mean “Oooooooooooooook!”?
Doing an exhaustive analysis, without even the presumptions that Diogenes brings:
-
If Jesus never existed, then obviously he had no DNA. Mythical entities don’t have a sequencable genome.
-
If Jesus existed and was a normal human being, Diogenes has it right: 50% from Mary, 50% from unidentified human father.
-
If Jesus existed as what orthodox Christianity proclaims him as, one person who was truly God and truly man in hypostatic union, born to a virgin, then his genome was 100% Mary’s. (The Y chromosome has very little to do with making someone male; that’s mediated on the ‘somatic’ chromosomes [those not X or Y]. The double-dose of ‘female’ from the reduplicated X is what makes women female, and why Klinefelter’s syndrome sufferers are androgynous.) Orthodox doctrine says that he derived his humanity from Mary. Presumably he was biologically an instance of parthenogenetic reproduction in which the double-X trigger towards femaleness had been suppressed. And it’s worth noting that the ‘virgin birth’ meme came out of a culture in which virginity other than the pre-marital kind was not celebrated and that it was a very early development, with earliest instances of the meme no more than 40 years after the Crucifixion, when there were still people alive who could put the lie to it.
I’m not thrilled to be defending the idea of the Virgin Birth. It’s always seemed to me to be a silly, contra-biological meme tacked onto the idea of Messiahship – a stumbling block rather than a stepping stone to belief. But there seems to be some evidence in the orthodox tradition that it was the real deal. It’s kind of like arguing that it doesn’t make sense for the tuatara to have survived in New Zealand. Rather, you take the data as it comes – it did, and try to figure out why.
That actually seems plausible, from the description. So we might potentially add “non-miraculous virgin birth” to the potential scenarios.
I mostly concur with Polycarp’s analysis, though Option 3 assumes the creator working through established physical means. While that’s not unreasonable, the alternative option remains that in the act of divine conception, God might have created part or all of His DNA in that act of conception.
While God might theoretically have made Him even more physically non-human, there’s no indication of his bleeding angelic ichor during the crucifixion, or anything of that sort, and one would think that it would subvert much of the point of the crucifixion and resurrection for Jesus to have been other than physically human. So if we assume a divine conception, I’d go with the “freshly custom-minted DNA” scenario. Whether any of that DNA would endure after the resurrection is another matter – I would propose that it might have ceased to exist or ascended along with Christ, leaving the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin with fragmentary of no genetic material at all, and confounding efforts to analyze the artifact in scientific terms.
'cause that’d be just like Him…
As a fictional character (albeit one with a lot of cultural bias toward the idea that he was historical) there was never any actual DNA to discuss.
Yes. Jesus Haploid Christ!
See post #3.
Heh, I got that spelling by writing that post on my phone with the Tapatalk app, which doesn’t underline misspelled words for me like my PC browsers…