Comments are closed.
The website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»
«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)
The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
creator of the website of this magazine:
MANUELA LUZZARDI
E’ appropriate to report, on the subject of dogma and the attitude that believers should have, this frank intervention by Mons. Antonio Love – co-founder of this magazine –
http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli-quando-nella-chiesa-l-eresia-dilaga-ogni-cattolico-ha-il-dovere-della-resistenza-20698.htm
E’ against some dogma to believe that Jesus had DNA like ours?
E’ against some dogma to believe that Jesus' DNA responded to the laws of nature?
E’ against some dogma to believe that, without that yes “they knew”, they were in Jesus' DNA “readable” the RNAs of Mary and Joseph?
Dear Reader,
we do not know which analysis laboratory in Nazareth read the RNAs of Mary and Joseph in the DNA of Jesus Christ.
But we know some experts who could clarify the problem, that is, these …
CLICK HERE
From the answer I would not like to deduce that, for you, Jesus' human nature was different from ours: I knew that the Virginal Conception is dogma, not that Jesus didn't have, in conflict with the laws of nature, a unique and unrepeatable DNA.
I repeat the question: Jesus had his own DNA?
Dear Reader,
none of us intend to joke about the mysteries of faith, of which we are very serious and not at all playful announcers.
However, you are asking an absurd question, in the etymological sense of the term absurd. Suffice it only to say that on the cross, Christ gave, he shed blood, not distilled water.
Indeed, the answer to your question, it is written in the profession of faith which reads «God from God, Light from Light,True God from true God ", it's still: «and by the work of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary and became man».
The Word of God became man by taking on our human nature, in all and for all [cf. Fil 2, 6-11], except sin
[see Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 456-478, text WHO]
To help you clarify your ideas, I suggest you read the text of Cyril against Nestorius:
«Dice, so, the holy and great council (of Nicaea) than the only begotten Son himself, generated according to nature by God the Father, True God born of the true God, light from light, he through whom the Father made all things, he came down and became flesh, he became a man, he suffered, he was resurrected on the third day, he ascended to heaven. We too must abide by these words and these teachings, reflecting carefully on what it means that the Word of God became incarnate and became man. We don't say, indeed, that nature became incarnate and changed from the Word, nor that she was transformed into a man, composed of soul and body. Let's say, Rather, than the Word, hypostatically uniting a flesh animated by a rational soul became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible way and called himself son of man, not assuming only the will nor even the person alone. They are different, that is, natures coming together, but there is only one Christ and Son which does not mean that this unity cancels out the difference between natures but rather that divinity and humanity form one and only Christ, and Son, that results from them; with their arcane union in unity. So it can be said that, despite existing before the centuries, and having been begotten of the Father, He was also begotten according to the flesh of a woman; but this does not mean that his divine nature began in the Holy Virgin, nor that she needed a second birth after that of her father (it would in fact be without reason, as well as silly, to say that he who existed before all ages and who is co-eternal with the Father, needs a second generation to exist); but because for us and for our salvation, he assumed human nature in the unity of a person, and he was born of a woman so it is said that he was born according to the flesh. We don't have to think, indeed, that any man was first generated by the Holy Virgin, and that then the Word descended into him: but what, instead, unique reality from the mother's womb, was born according to the flesh, accepting the birth of one's flesh".
You can find the full text translated into Italian WHO
I fully agree with Cyril's text against Nestorius, and so I assume that, for you too, Jesus, like all men subject to the laws of nature, it had its own unique and unrepeatable DNA.
The problem that now arises is: Jesus being male, where does the Y chromosome come from??
a. If Maria was not affected by some genetic anomaly she could not have had the Y chromosome.
b. If the Y chromosome had been “operated” from the Holy Spirit it could be said that the biological father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
Being the points “a” e “b” irrational and illogical, where the unique and unrepeatable DNA and the XY chromosome pair of Jesus comes from?
Dear Reader,
there is an encyclical of the Holy Pontiff John Paul II called Faith and Reason and which we can consider the synthesis of centuries and centuries of philosophical-theological speculations of the greatest holy fathers and doctors of the Church.
If you believe by faith – assuming of course that he believes it – that God became man, what does a trifle like the "unique and unrepeatable DNA and the XY chromosomal pair of Jesus" mean??
If the begotten, uncreated Son of the same substance as the Father became man, he wants his human DNA not to have been fixed as well?
Now, if you consider the points you illustrate to us to be "irrational and illogical"., how much more irrational and above all anti-scientific should we consider the fact that Christ, three days after death, he was resurrected and then subsequently ascended into heaven? How much more irrational and above all anti-scientific should we consider the fact that through the transubstantiation of the sacred Eucharistic species, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?
Using the same meter she adopted, he understands that certain elements are much more "illogical" than the question of DNA and chromosomes?
As always, an excellent, comprehensive and enlightening article. In my small way, I believe that today the Church does too much politics and little evangelization. Some time ago someone told me that the good Pope Francis I probably considers the society of 2000 mature to the point of not needing proselytism and moral beatings because she is inclined to discernment. I believe instead that the man of 2000 be forward, and a lot too, from the point of view of technological progress but incapable in the spiritual field. Philanthropic charity is not Christian charity, respect towards others without the vision of Christ can never be spiritual emancipation but rather poorly made humanism which then leads to the delirium of omnipotence in which man tends to be narcissistic, forever eliminating the idea of the Creator, replacing Him with unhealthy rules and rights that become dangerous civic dogmas . And the Church, which should put things right by dusting off the Truth without many compromises and ideas of take away mercies, he gets stuck in this state of affairs as if nothing had happened. But on the other hand, today people have lost faith, it is also the fault of the Church….