Was Jesus Left Handed?

If you hold to a pre-incarnate existence for Jesus, then there has been one human in the entire course of history that actually got to choose--before birth--whether he would be predominantly right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. In fact, by holding to a virgin birth, it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to pick out His specific DNA, prior to being born. Could not let the chips fall where they may, because Joseph was not providing any.

What DNA did Jesus choose? Did he go with right-handed (to make his life a bit easier) or left-handed (to suffer a bit)?

Many of us have wrestled with the concept of Jesus being God and Human. The idea of “100% God and 100% Man” is as problematic as the quintessential High School coach that says, “Give 110%.” We all know that 100% is the most we could ever possibly give, and in the same way, no creature could be of such a dualistic nature and consist of “200%.”

What traditionally happens, in this discussion, despite long dissertations, and numerous citations, is that it boils down to “We don’t know.” Is that satisfying enough? Yet another, in a long list, of items claimed by humans to exist in a God, yet when questioned, the human can only say, “It simply is—we don’t know why.” If this is not convincing to you in the field of cosmology or abiogenesis, (while remote, at least it is feasible for natural causes) why should it be convincing to me when you are claiming something that is logically impossible (not feasible at all)?

Rather than the traditional arguments, I got to contemplating on the concept of Jesus picking out His own DNA. (Creating a conundrum in itself, as Jesus, always existing, would always KNOW what DNA he would pick, and therefore had no real choice. He already pre-knew he would be right-handed, so how could he have chosen differently?)

First, the basics. We read that God forms normal humans in the womb. Job. 31:15, Psalm 139:13. Jesus claims to have existed long before he was born. John 8:58. Even if Mary supplied half the DNA, she had no Y-chromosome to make Jesus male, so at the least that had to come from God.

There’s Jesus, say 10 BCE, putting together his DNA to see how he will turn out when a human. Hmm…first problem. According to Luke 4:2, there was at least something that would tempt Jesus to sin. Heb. 4:15 says He was tempted in all ways just like we are.

It would seem that many people have a genetic predisposition toward certain sins. If Jesus was to be tempted in “all ways” (there’s the troublesome phrase) did he include those predispositions in his DNA? Did he include a propensity toward alcoholism, so that he could be tempted in the same way that a human with a similar propensity is?

If there is a genetic inclination to homosexuality—did Jesus include that as well? Or toward gambling? Or a higher libido? As we look about us, we see that many humans struggle with various problems at different levels. Did Jesus include all that in the mix as well, so as to be intimately familiar with how a person could be tempted in those regards? Does he include desires? James 1:14

Frankly, I think feet are one of the uglier body parts. A woman’s bare foot is about as exciting to me as a rock. However, there are some people that have a foot fetish. Seeing a bare foot causes them to lust. A sin. Did Jesus throw in a foot fetish in his DNA?

Or does “tempted in all ways” merely mean representative?

“Here Jesus, have a drink!”
“Oh wow. There for a moment I was tempted to have too much. There. That takes care of alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, workaholics, LSD and pot.”

“Hey Jesus, let’s go make out with those girls.”
“Whoops. I was tempted to lust for a second. There. That takes care of lust, fetishes, pedophilia, necrophilia, sodomy, adultery and fornication in one fell swoop.”

Of course, the traditional response to this may be, “It will mean what we want it to mean at this particular moment, but we haven’t even figured out how one creature can be 200%, so we really don’t know how 100% of a creature can be tempted (Heb. 4:15) and 100% of the same creature NOT be tempted (James 1:13) without it looking like a complete logical contradiction.”

Or did Jesus have an inclination to “nudge” His DNA a bit? He could zip up his IQ a few dozen points, just by including the right cells. Is that getting the whole human experience? Would it have been more appropriate to include Dyslexia?

According to Luke 2:47-48, by the time Jesus was 12, he was astounding the teachers at the temple with his understanding. How did he get so smart? Did he “nudge” his IQ at the time of he made himself, so as to astound those simpletons? He was God—how far could he bump it and make it seem legitimate? 200? 250?

Or, in order to have this knowledge, did he do a little tapping into the 100% God part and dig into omniscience? Does 100% Human include the ability to tap into 100% God at will? Can any of us, when stumped, reach over with our brain into the God-Brain part of us and triumphantly shout, “Ha! There’s that tricky answer!” Of course not.

There is no DNA for that.

The ability to even utilize any of the 100% God eliminates Jesus from being 100% Human, since no other Human has ever been able to do that.

How many other things did Jesus foresee and include in his own DNA? Not eating for 40 days is possible. (Luke 4:2) But by including a gene that would give one a lower metabolism would sure help the process.

And what was Jesus’ pain threshold? Knowing he was going to be crucified, did he “nudge up” that threshold just a bit, in order to endure? Or, aware he could tap into God when he wanted, did he not bother?

Stories are recounted as to the 100% Human Jesus using the 100% God Jesus as needs arose. If he was hungry, he could turn a few fish into a banquet. (Mt. 15:36-38) (But with that metabolism he gave himself, maybe he didn’t need to.)

While we all understand the social necessity of taxation, it does not mean we like to pay them. To all the 100% Humans reading this, wouldn’t you like the chance to draw from a 100% God inside of you and find money to pay your taxes? That is what Jesus got to do. No 100% human has the ability to guess that the next fish caught would happen to contain inside it the right amount to pay for their taxes. (Mt. 17:24-27)

Is it possible we have not found psychic DNA, which Jesus used, or is it more likely that Jesus borrowed some of his God-power on this one?

I do not know of any DNA that allows one to walk on water, or control weather, so on those, I would think Jesus also dipped into the God-side. (Mark 6:48; Luke 8:24)

(As an aside, if there are instances in which we observe Jesus utilize the God-power, it is very probably that he equally used it in situations we could not observe. How do we know he suffered while being crucified? All he had to do was turn on some God-power and all the pain would disappear. He didn’t even have to act in pain, because he was doing the silent suffering servant bit. By foreseeing the future, he could have been watching a Tigers/Sox baseball game in his mind the entire time!)

At the time the Gospels were written, concepts such as DNA, or genetic manipulation would be inconceivable. Now we gained knowledge in these fields which render even more problems to the stories of a God creating a human form for Himself. How does a God pick how much IQ to give Himself if He is to interact with Humans? How much pain threshold? If he is to be tempted by hunger, how much metabolic rate? How remarkable is it for a God to appear in Human form, if he has picked the best DNA from the crop?

I propose that the First Century writers not only did not know of these scientific findings, but would not have cared even if they did. They were writing mythos or legend. Anything that seemed problematic could be resolved by “It’s a miracle.”

Little has changed in 2000 years, except now Christianity is attempting to maintain a reasoned scientific position in a more knowledgeable world, and many people are scratching their head, wondering how this fits with what they know.

In the end, I think the better solution is to stick with “We don’t have a clue—chalk it up to another unexplainable facet of God.” But I hope Christians understand that a human giving dogmatic descriptions they insist on being accurate, but then are unable to explain makes the proposition not very convincing.

[Re-dated from August '06]

9 comments:

John W. Loftus said...

You think of things I never thought before. You're good. This was funny but with a point. Thanks!

Martin Wagner said...

Well, I must admit this is a fun variant on the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" routine!

SuperSkeptic said...

The word "sinister" comes from the Latin, meaning "on the left."

From Wikipedia:
"Until the latter part of the twentieth century, Roman Catholic nuns in American elementary schools (and possibly elsewhere) would punish children for using their left hand to write, typically by slapping their left hand with a ruler if they attempted to pick up a pen with it. Left-handedness was interpreted as a sign of Satanic influence, and thus prohibited."

My bet is that Jesus chose to be right-handed, even if he did have a wicked split-finger fastball. ;-)

Daniel said...

DagoodS,

Excellent post. I'm sorry I didn't read it earlier. Always good to point to the "soft underbelly" of Christian theology -- the so-called "mysteries" of the Trinity, homoiousis, the problem of combining pre-knowledge (omniscience) and freedom (omnipotence)...etc

Always an enjoyable read.

King Aardvark said...

For the 100% human plus 100% God thing, the way I heard it explained was similar to a model of the mixing of two solutions used in science class. Say you have a jar, in this case representing either a jar or a human vessel. You fill it up so that it is full of golf balls, representing either big molecules or "human stuff". Then you fill up the jar with sand, representing either smaller molecules or "God stuff". That way, you get all of the human side crammed in there, plus all this God stuff crammed in as well. Now, in science class, one solution doesn't disappear fully into the other, but you can add a solution with a volume of 20 mL to a solution with a volume of 40 mL and end up with a solution with a volume of only 50 mL total, so that's not enough for the whole God thing.

Still sounds like a load of hooey to me.

Patrick said...

You have wayyyyyy too much time on your hands.

Samphire said...

On the other hand he could have been ambidextrous.

Zach the Lizard said...

A nice post, very thoughtful. There is only one tidbit that I can take issue with: the necessity of taxes.

Though rare, there are anarchists, and they are very likely to reject all forms of taxation, making the assertion that we all "understand the social necessity of taxation" not true. This is a minor detail, though, and not one that changes the argument in any way.

Reggie's Blood Shed said...

This explains why Jesus was 6 ft tall. The average height of a male back then would be like 5'4... you cram "God like stuff" in a man and that makes him a little bigger.
I like the jar theory. Thanks unenlightened righty!