Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Anyone else want to explain how this genealogy is not connected to real people in the real world made by God in the beginning that lead to the Savior of the world?
I decided to elaborate.
The apostles did not die for the historicity of Luke's genealogies (they probably did not even know about them), but for the historicity of the resurrection.
Again, there were no such genealogies leading to Adam. So they are either fictional or supernaturally dictated by God, 77 names (symbolic number, interestingly) one after another.
One way God speaks to us is in picture form (a seeing) … the symbolism of the two seeds runs from cover to cover in the Bible (which begins with “Let there be light (darkness becoming the opposite of what God calls good … it is the reason Noah was the tenth from Adam, or why Adam only lived 930 years, or why when Jude counted Enoch the seventh from Adam he didn’t include Cain whose lineage description includes an Enoch (and a Lamech) that Cain builds a city and then names it after his firstborn.
Does he? Who is "he" if there isn't a literal Adam? What does that mean if there is not a literal Adam to commit a literal sin?
So then is the Lord Jesus, the last person in this genealogy, and Joseph also... are they symbolic or literal also? At which person do the fictional characters convert into non-fictional characters?
Because it states explicitly in the text that Adam is the Son of God. God is the first person in the lineage.
There were no historical records of genealogies leading to Adam from Joseph or from Mary or from whomever. If we do not believe that God directly dictated 77 names to Luke, then Luke created a fictional, symbolic genealogy. At least for some parts.
OK.
People also believe Satan is the good guy, and Lord Jesus is the bad guy. They would be very, very wrong.
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine …
False.
Where did Luke get this from? There were no such historical genealogical records. You may believe that God dictated directly 77 names to Luke, I believe this is symbolic to create a theological message.
This applies to you, too.
Straw man fallacy. Bible is a library (not a book) of many genres. Some are fictional, some are not, some are mixed.
The genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differ significantly, particularly after the time of King David. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through Solomon, one of David's sons, while Luke traces it through Nathan, another son of David. They also diverge in the number of generations between David and Joseph, with Luke having more. Matthew focuses on Jesus' royal lineage as the "Son of David," while Luke emphasizes his connection to all humanity as the "Son of Man," tracing his lineage back to Adam.
If you can’t trust Wikipedia, who can you trust?
Proverbs 17:22 is an excellent verse that I love very much. Not sure its relevance, but I always welcome the reminder.
The Bible is written primarily and in its majority in historical narrative style, and with that are symbols and representations and the like included. To turn real people into non-literal symbols I personally feel is a bit dramatic of one in the sense of taking their own liberties with the text.
Lol... What does that mean? He didn't convert people into vapor and poetic symbols? Or are you trying to say I was laughing at him and not his ideas??? I know you are a provocateur sir. No lion poking.
Ahh, but you are not alone in the non-literal camp, and they have their varied versions all their own...That's actually a non-sequitur, mainly because no one is saying that it all belongs in the same paradigm.
I know you don't want to hear this, but it is what it is, bro.
The Jewish people are notorious for record keeping. The question you are posing can be carried over into literally every account in the Bible and every verse. Where did Moses get Genesis? How are you sure the scribes didn't make up the accounts they provided? Who says it was Solomon, or king David, or Esther... This is a bag of worms and a tangent that kind of gets crazy. Doubt is dangerous, and a person must sort out the credibility of the text as a whole for themselves in a sense. You want me to provide you some proof of a genealogy, but what I can say is I approach the text of the Bible like Simon Greenleaf did.
That is right, but the text is on my side. It says there are people from God, to Adam, to Joseph, to Jesus, and it is given in a style that represents a historical account of a family lineage of people. Just like the kind they write for kings when they follow their lineage, that is to supply evidence for their qualifications as the next king. Meaning the text provided this as a basis to offer evidence that Christ Jesus is who He says He is and He qualifies as the person to save us, be the Messiah, and the true King of Israel.
With one author, God. The collection as a whole has a name, is collected into a single compilation as one book, with one binding, with one story, about one person. The entire book is about Jesus Christ, cover to cover. If anyone doesn't know that yet, time to dig deeper.
