I know it's been brought up lots but i didn't retain the info so i'll ask again. If TEs are correct, then what's the point of the lineage? When does it turn from factual ppl into mythical ones? Etc Etc with the questions along those lines...
Jesus list of ancestors!?
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
- Status
Goddidit?
Or as Dr. Phil Fernandes put it, I already know the 'who', so I don't need to know the 'how', 'when', 'where', 'why', etc. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3793684797346981918&q=evolution)
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
look at the lists.
1. jesus is not the physical son of joseph
2. adam is not the physical son of God
is there any indicator that theses two relationships are any different than the rest?
Upvote
0
The lineage of Jesus has to be seen from the perspective of the time in question other wise people will get confused so i'll juts list a few facts about the lineage.
1.It shows that he is of thge lineage of David who is also from the lineage desended from Abraham. This is so because of royal succession, where there needs to be documentation to show lineage to claim to be king. Since Jesus is on the line of succession then he holds the right to be kind of Isreal, although since he is already king of the universe its kinda irrelevent but to non-believing jews of the time it would have increased his credibility as the messiah.
2. Yes Jesus was not born from Joseph and the line clearly the geneology in the gospel of matthew is of Joseph, but once again we must look back to the period of time. After every birth the roman empire required that every child must be registered almost like a birth certificate of today and since Joseph was the husband of Mary they would have put Jospeh as the fatehr on this certificate.
3. sometimes geneologies do not match completly, this also must be taken into the context of the time, where is was quite normal to omit names and even entire branches of the family from the line. This was done maybe because he shamed the family or wa put out or simply wasn't very important either case this does not negate the validity of the geneology.
4. the last point i have ties in with #3 in that since some names can be ommited differant geneologies can sometimes use difernt people and again we must always look through the perpective of the time we want to study.
hope this helps
1.It shows that he is of thge lineage of David who is also from the lineage desended from Abraham. This is so because of royal succession, where there needs to be documentation to show lineage to claim to be king. Since Jesus is on the line of succession then he holds the right to be kind of Isreal, although since he is already king of the universe its kinda irrelevent but to non-believing jews of the time it would have increased his credibility as the messiah.
2. Yes Jesus was not born from Joseph and the line clearly the geneology in the gospel of matthew is of Joseph, but once again we must look back to the period of time. After every birth the roman empire required that every child must be registered almost like a birth certificate of today and since Joseph was the husband of Mary they would have put Jospeh as the fatehr on this certificate.
3. sometimes geneologies do not match completly, this also must be taken into the context of the time, where is was quite normal to omit names and even entire branches of the family from the line. This was done maybe because he shamed the family or wa put out or simply wasn't very important either case this does not negate the validity of the geneology.
4. the last point i have ties in with #3 in that since some names can be ommited differant geneologies can sometimes use difernt people and again we must always look through the perpective of the time we want to study.
hope this helps
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
I think both genealogies are written to establish Jesus' credentials as son of David. However there is an even more important sonship being established in the gospels, Jesus son of God. The odd thing is the range of testimonies drawn on, from the devil's 'if you are the son of God', and the high priest's 'are you the son of God?' through crowd's jeering 'he said he was the son of God, demons crying out 'you are the son of God', apostles, gospel writers, the centurion, Jesus himself and even God.
There really are some strange and unintentional testimonies picked up by the gospel writers. I think an official genealogy, even if only a 'supposed' genealogy, that admits Jesus is son of God, has its place among these diverse witnesses.
There really are some strange and unintentional testimonies picked up by the gospel writers. I think an official genealogy, even if only a 'supposed' genealogy, that admits Jesus is son of God, has its place among these diverse witnesses.
Upvote
0
this is all good info so far, but what's the point of giving a geneology that traces back to mythical ppl? if David was a king, but adam was a myth, why go back through both? at what point does it go from fact to myth?
Upvote
0
By Luke going back to the first man and hence to God, it shows the universal impact of Jesus upon all people not just Israel.
Matthew's was focused on the Messianic aspect of Jesus which is why it went from Solomon to David and Luke went from Solomon to Nathan...
It has been argued that Nathan was a prophetic figure so Luke would also be focusing on the prophetic and universal impact of Jesus...
No. It's also most likely Joseph's but the Levirite Marraige line...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
knownbeforetime
Princess of the Lord of Grace and Power
- Dec 27, 2004
- 4,790
- 411
- 38
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Makes you wonder... If Jesus was related to mythical people, then maybe he was mythical himself... LOL
Upvote
0
I don't know if that's really the important aspect of the geneologies, though. Jesus' divinity, historical existence, and messiahship are all different claims within the NT.
Jesus being the Messiah and being God incarnate are two different claims. Matthew's geneology helps establish that Jesus is the Messiah as being of "the root of Jesse"... Luke focuses on a different, universal aspect.
They are both theologically true, though. But neither is the foundation for Jesus being either the Messiah or the Word incarnate...
That being the case even if the geneologies contained mythical characters I don't think it's a large issue...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
knownbeforetime
Princess of the Lord of Grace and Power
- Dec 27, 2004
- 4,790
- 411
- 38
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't think the Holy Spirit is interested in myths and legends.... If God reveals that Jesus is descended from Adam, I take that to mean a literal Adam.
Upvote
0
You could take that stance... if we didn't already have evidence supporting Jesus' very real existence (like extra-biblical testimony, for example).
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
yet you already have read:
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
where the relationship of Adam to God is described as son of in the same way that Seth is the son of Adam. Yet you know that God did not "birth" Adam in the same way that Adam's wife birthed Seth. You already know that the list is not LITERAL, for Adam is not the literal son of God. Yet there are no markers in the geneology to tell you either that God is not a man or that the relationship of God to Adam is not the same as the other relationships listed.
You already read the name "God" differently from all those other names, you already see the son of relationship differently for Adam to God as for any other of the geneology list pairs.
Or do you content that since Deus is listed as a father that God is a Mormon type of god, having a body and a physical relationship to Adam? at least they consistently interpret the geneologies. each name and each relationship is the same. YECist appear to gloss over the use of the name Deus and the relationship of that name to Adam trying to show that Adam is historical.
Plus you say that Jesus is descended from Adam, yet most Christians saw that Jesus is God's son. Very confusing. you try to prove historicity by glossing over the problems showing that it is not a strict geneology.
Upvote
0
laptoppop
Servant of the living God
- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't completely agree (big surprise there!
). If all the geneaologies were trying to do was to establish "root of Jesse" then they'd stop there. One of the cool things is that they go all the way back to Adam -- and that it demonstrates God's complete faithfulness from His messianic prophecy in Gen 3:15 (to Satan: "He shall bruise your head..."). Eve thought it was going to be fulfilled in 4:1 -- where the language can be seen as "a man, even the LORD", as opposed to "a man, from the LORD". (don't you hate it when the Lord's timing is longer than your own??) The fuller genealogy shows God's faithfullness at all the points of prophecy from Eve on down -- truly wonderful. Of course, this makes the most sense when you see Eve as a real singular person.....
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Matthew does stop there at Abraham rather than going back to Adam...
In fact, Matthew's geneology is broken down into three 14 person legs... 14 is the Hebrew numerical symbol for King David...
Pretty cool...
In fact, Matthew's geneology is broken down into three 14 person legs... 14 is the Hebrew numerical symbol for King David...
Pretty cool...
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
