Christ's Furthest Ancestor

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
1Cor 15:45 . .The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam
became a life-giving spirit.

On numerous occasions, Jesus identified himself as "son of man" which is an
identity that the original Adam could never pin on himself because he wasn't
a previous man's progeny.

In the same vein, if Jesus is truly an Adam, then he too should not be able
to identify himself as a son of man because as an Adam he would not be a
previous man's progeny.

In other words: both the original Adam and the last Adam are the beginners
of their kind instead of more of their kind.

Ergo: when Jesus says he is the son of man, he is saying that he is more of
his kind rather than the beginner of his kind; otherwise the normal concept
of a "son" as someone's offspring has no rational significance in the real
world.
_
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
FAQ: How was Christ biologically related to Adam without having a biological
father? (Luke 1:26-34)


A: The woman wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. Eve wasn't a solo specimen
constructed directly from dust like Adam was; instead, Eve was made from
already-created human material taken from Adam's body. (Gen 2:21-22)

In other words: chemically, organically, and biologically; Eve was just as
much the Man as Adam; except of course for gender. (Gen 2:23)

So then, any posterity that Eve's body might engender would be Adam's
posterity just as much as they would be hers because every part of the
posterity's bodies-- including their brains --would be constructed with
material taken from their mother's body; which was, in turn, constructed
with material taken from Adam's body.

Addressing the Serpent, God said:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and
her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen
3:15)

Pretty much everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that passage
predicted Christ.

"her seed" indicates that Christ would be Eve's biological posterity; and if so,
then he would also be Adam's biological posterity because all of Eve's bodily
parts and functions were constructed of material taken from Adam's body.

There's more.

Mary's pregnancy is stated to be caused not by an implant, rather, caused
by conception.

Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall
name him Jesus.

In order for Mary's pregnancy to be the result of conception, her body's seed
would have to be involved. Well, unless someone can prove beyond the
slightest hint of sensible doubt that Mary's body was in no way the biological
posterity of Eve's body, then we have to conclude that Eve's seed was the
origin of Mary's seed; and if so, then the origin of Mary's seed was Adam's
body.
_
God made a sperm cell to fertilize Mary's egg cell, thus the man Christ Jesus was both the son of man and the son of God.

Super easy here.
 

Truman

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2020
7,931
8,744
113
Brantford
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
.
FAQ: How was Christ biologically related to Adam without having a biological
father? (Luke 1:26-34)


A: The woman wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. Eve wasn't a solo specimen
constructed directly from dust like Adam was; instead, Eve was made from
already-created human material taken from Adam's body. (Gen 2:21-22)

In other words: chemically, organically, and biologically; Eve was just as
much the Man as Adam; except of course for gender. (Gen 2:23)

So then, any posterity that Eve's body might engender would be Adam's
posterity just as much as they would be hers because every part of the
posterity's bodies-- including their brains --would be constructed with
material taken from their mother's body; which was, in turn, constructed
with material taken from Adam's body.

Addressing the Serpent, God said:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and
her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen
3:15)

Pretty much everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that passage
predicted Christ.

"her seed" indicates that Christ would be Eve's biological posterity; and if so,
then he would also be Adam's biological posterity because all of Eve's bodily
parts and functions were constructed of material taken from Adam's body.

There's more.

Mary's pregnancy is stated to be caused not by an implant, rather, caused
by conception.

Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall
name him Jesus.

In order for Mary's pregnancy to be the result of conception, her body's seed
would have to be involved. Well, unless someone can prove beyond the
slightest hint of sensible doubt that Mary's body was in no way the biological
posterity of Eve's body, then we have to conclude that Eve's seed was the
origin of Mary's seed; and if so, then the origin of Mary's seed was Adam's
body.
_
Very cool!
 

charity

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2017
3,234
3,192
113
75
UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
.
FAQ: How was Christ biologically related to Adam without having a biological
father? (Luke 1:26-34)


A: The woman wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. Eve wasn't a solo specimen
constructed directly from dust like Adam was; instead, Eve was made from
already-created human material taken from Adam's body. (Gen 2:21-22)

In other words: chemically, organically, and biologically; Eve was just as
much the Man as Adam; except of course for gender. (Gen 2:23)

So then, any posterity that Eve's body might engender would be Adam's
posterity just as much as they would be hers because every part of the
posterity's bodies-- including their brains --would be constructed with
material taken from their mother's body; which was, in turn, constructed
with material taken from Adam's body.

Addressing the Serpent, God said:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and
her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen
3:15)

Pretty much everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that passage
predicted Christ.

"her seed" indicates that Christ would be Eve's biological posterity; and if so,
then he would also be Adam's biological posterity because all of Eve's bodily
parts and functions were constructed of material taken from Adam's body.

There's more.

Mary's pregnancy is stated to be caused not by an implant, rather, caused
by conception.

Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall
name him Jesus.

In order for Mary's pregnancy to be the result of conception, her body's seed
would have to be involved. Well, unless someone can prove beyond the
slightest hint of sensible doubt that Mary's body was in no way the biological
posterity of Eve's body, then we have to conclude that Eve's seed was the
origin of Mary's seed; and if so, then the origin of Mary's seed was Adam's
body.
'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.'

(Gen 3:15)

Hello @Webers_Home

I am sure you would agree that it is vitally important that we understand how the Holy Spirit in his word uses the word 'Seed' in the verse above, and confine our consideration of this subject within it's boundaries. So that our understanding of what is written is not influenced by our own reasoning which is coloured by external influences.

Here in Genesis 3:15, the word is translated from the Hebrew word, 'zera' (H2233). In this verse it is used figuratively, (where a common name is used for a proper one) Christ being called, 'the seed of the woman': all others are seed of some woman; but Christ is 'THE Seed', superseding all other seed in importance. Eve was named so (Genesis 3:20) because she was the mother of all living.

The genealogy of our Lord, both in Matthew and Luke, show that both through Mary (ie., in Luke's gospel), and through Joseph (His father under law) in Matthew's gospel: that the Lord Jesus Christ had both legal and natural right to the throne of David and to the Land promised through Abraham. It is Mary's genealogy which takes us back to Adam. From the birth of Christ to God Himself.

What more do we need than this? Why bring our own reasoning to bear upon this?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
It is Mary's genealogy which takes us back to Adam.

The genealogy given in the gospel of Luke is sometimes appropriated to
establish Mary's biological connection with David, and subsequently Adam,
but I don't recommend that route because the language and grammar of
Luke 3:23 is much too controversial.

Along with the language and grammar issue; there's a serious question
about the listings of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. In Matthew's genealogy, the
two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's genealogy, they're
linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as
Abihud in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how
best to resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd
have to consider the data compromised; which I do, and which is why I
avoid using Luke's to prove that Mary was biologically related to David.


NOTE: It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common
names so we shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies.
However, they are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we
cannot expect reasonable people to accept as mere coincidence.
_
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In any given genealogy there are two who are in direct ancestry to any given name.

It may be true, for example, that Shealtiel had Nathan as an ancestor on his mother's side and Solomon on his father's side.

It is such a simple explanation that I am surprised it was not seen by the scholars who were looking at the issue. Perhaps they were coming from the perspective that they wanted the Bible to be compromised...
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
It may be true, for example, that Shealtiel had Nathan as an ancestor on his
mother's side and Solomon on his father's side.

It is such a simple explanation that I am surprised it was not seen by the
scholars who were looking at the issue. Perhaps they were coming from the
perspective that they wanted the Bible to be compromised

When using words like "it may be true" you're not proposing an explanation,
you're proposing a theory. Well; theories are controversial; and as such we
cannot expect people in possession of all their marbles to accept them as
fact.
_
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.


When using words like "it may be true" you're not proposing an explanation,
you're proposing a theory. Well; theories are controversial; and as such we
cannot expect people in possession of all their marbles to accept them as
fact.
_
Let me put it this way: it is definitely true that Shealtiel had Nathan as His ancestor on either his mother or his father's side and Solomon as his ancestor on the side of the other.

But as it is, I don't understand why you would want to contend for the idea that the Bible is not reliable in its every word...this is not the contending of someone who is born again.

Those who are born again understand that they were born again through the word of God, and that others will not be born again apart from it....and those who are born again also desire others to be born again.

Are you yourself desirous of others being born again through the word of God? If so, why would you attempt to disparage its veracity before the people?
 

charity

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2017
3,234
3,192
113
75
UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
.


The genealogy given in the gospel of Luke is sometimes appropriated to
establish Mary's biological connection with David, and subsequently Adam,
but I don't recommend that route because the language and grammar of
Luke 3:23 is much too controversial.

Along with the language and grammar issue; there's a serious question
about the listings of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. In Matthew's genealogy, the
two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's genealogy, they're
linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as
Abihud in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how
best to resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd
have to consider the data compromised; which I do, and which is why I
avoid using Luke's to prove that Mary was biologically related to David.


NOTE: It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common
names so we shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies.
However, they are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we
cannot expect reasonable people to accept as mere coincidence.
Hello @Webers_Home,

I have no problem with either genealogy, having read very good explanations regarding the seeming inconsistencies raised. Perhaps they could be discussed in a thread devoted to a comparison of the genealogies of Matthew's gospel and that of Luke. However, I prefer to praise God for what is written, in the sure knowledge that He knows precisely why these genealogies are as they are. That they are correct, and that it is man's knowledge and understanding that is flawed.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Are you yourself desirous of others being born again through the word of
God? If so, why would you attempt to disparage its veracity before the
people?


I avoid practicing Machiavellian principles, viz: I do not believe the end
justifies the means.

When I sincerely believe there is a problem with the language and grammar
of the English translation of a particular verse in the Bible, I believe it's only
fair that people be told about it.

We today, in our country, don't have the word of God anyway. We have
English translations of available Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts,
which themselves are not the original writings, i.e. them being available
does not make them original; nor does their age make them eo ipso reliable.

God is just as much disadvantaged in this respect as we. He and us are
coping with a numerous variety of translations, and not even one of them
can be verified 100% correct.

It's apparently not commonly known that it is virtually impossible to move
thoughts from one language to another without losing something in the
process. And to top it off, there are quite few ancient words that scholars
don't know for sure what they mean so they take their best guess at them.

And then there are what's known as "editorial insertions" which are words
not in the manuscripts that are penciled into translations as fill in order to
make sketchy passages readable.

All I can say is: Caveat Lector, and best of luck.
_
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We today, in our country, don't have the word of God anyway.

I beg to differ. I believe that we have God's unadulterated message in the kjv of the Holy Bible.

God is just as much disadvantaged in this respect as we.

God is certainly never "disadvantaged".

He is both Omnipotent, and Sovereign, and loving.

And therefore He is not going to allow the unadulterated message of the gospel to be lost to the common people. He is both able and willing to preserve that for us.

Of course, some translations are indeed watered down in comparison to some of the Bible translations that are based in the Textus Receptus, which include the fulness of what we are to believe is the inspired and inerrant word of the Lord.