was Mary genetically related to Jesus,was she his biological mother?

Answer 1

Yes, she was his biological mother. She gave birth to him.

Answer 2

Yes, Mary was the biological mother of Jesus and Joseph was his biological father. Mary was impregnated by Joseph through normal processes. The fertilized egg was then implanted with the personality of Jesus by God. There was no "virgin birth". Notwithstanding that such an event was not necessary for God's purpose to be effected, the word in the bible meaning "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin".

Answer 3

The really good question is: whence the Y-chromosome of Jesus?

The answer is the Holy Spirit, and that this Y-chromosome was that which defined the New Adam, leading to all sorts of embarassing questions for theologians.

Answer 4

Yes, that is where Jesus got his humanity from. His mother. Not space aliens. You will run itno problems when you start dividing Jesus into different natures. He is a Person, not 2 separate natures.

This very question has been raised several times in the early centuries of Church history.

Evangelical-born-again-bible-only" criticisms of the fundamental Christian teaching that Mary is the Mother of God inevitably end up repeating the ancient heresies of Nestorianism, Adoptionism, Arianism and Monophysitism.

According to Nestorianism, there are two persons in Jesus Christ, one human and the other divine.

According to Adoptionism Jesus was a man by nature and later became God by adoption; because of his exemplary life he was exalted to divine sonship.

Arianism essentially holds that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God.

Monophysitism, also called Eutychianism, is the view that Jesus Christ had a divine but not a human nature; although He "wore" human flesh He was not truly human. 1

All four heresies deny the basic Christian affirmation that Jesus Christ was a divine Person Who was fully God and fully man. Many Fundamentalist writers who disdain "theology" and Marian doctrine in equal measure have unwittingly fallen into the swamps of ancient heresy by their rejection of the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God. In their view, this doctrine is false because it implies that Mary is a goddess and also contradicts Scripture. In a nutshell it must be said that the "Mother of God" doctrine specifically rejects the idea that Mary is divine or semi-divine: all it says is that the Person Jesus Who was her Son was a divine Person. She is the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity in His humanity and not His divinity. Scripture tells us this and Elizabeth even addresses her as "the Mother of my Lord" ("Lord" = Yahweh in the Old Testament). The pre-eminent Protestant theologian of this century, Karl Barth, stated clearly that "The description of Mary as 'Mother of God' was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary christological proposition." 2

Interestingly some Fundamentalist and Evangelical writers admit that the title Mother of God cannot be avoided - although they try to downplay the significance of the title by claiming that the title is theologically valid but must be avoided or ignored because it leads to excesses of Marian devotion. But the obvious reply to this line of reasoning is that the question of whether devotion is excessive is a matter of arbitrary interpretation.

In the first place, Christians honored her as Queen of Heaven before she was defined as Mother of God; Marian mediation was accepted long before the definition as well.

Secondly, it is simply incredible to claim that the definition, while authentic, should lead us to focus on the humanity of Jesus rather than to "elevate Mary as Mother of God". This is like saying that the definition simply tells us that Mary provided Jesus with a human body - but that there was no other relationship between Jesus and the one who provided Him with a body.

On the contrary, the definition pointed, on the one hand, to the fact that Jesus was a real human being because He had a human mother and, on the other, to the fact that Mary was the Mother of a Person Who was divine.

Finally, it is not only legitimate but obligatory for Christians to give Mary a higher degree of honor once they realize that she is Mother of God. Once the Councils defined the divinity of Jesus, Christians received a fresh impetus to worship Him - and it was clearly right that they should respond to the definition by worship and adoration.

Similarly, once the Councils defined Mary as the Mother of God, the Christian community received an additional impetus for their pre-existing Marian veneration (which is different from the worship reserved only for God) - and it was clearly right for them to respond with a higher level of devotion.

The definition (which even many Fundamentalists admit was legitimate), did not, of course, take place in a vacuum. It reflected the faith and devotion of the Christian faithful and their veneration for Mary that went back to biblical times.


1 Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984).

2 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I,2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 138.

Answer 5

Most people would say yes but it's not really certain. The Bible says:

"Then the angel said to her, "Fear not, Mary, for you have found grace with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end." Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy Baby which is to be born shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:30-35

So one would assume that somehow Jesus was the Son of Mary and God, but maybe God placed a fertilized embryo in her womb so that while Jesus was fully human his body wasn't actually formed from the genetic material of the fallen human race. The Bible does refer to Jesus as the "second Adam" so it's quite possible that this is the case.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:12-21