Jesus list of ancestors!?

[laptoppop]

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...

Good points - you're right, of course, its the other one that goes back to Adam.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Of course Jesus referred to himself as 'the son of man', which I don't think any of us takes literally.

Son of man simply means 'human' rather than referring to any literal father. Interestingly though, the Hebrew in verses like Psalm 8:4 is ben adam. Adam means man or mankind, being called a son of Adam is simply to be human.

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.....

But not the snake.

Because Jesus didn't step on a snake's head as God promised Eve in the story. Just like Luke's ...son of Adam, son of God, at some stage you have step out of the literal interpretation or you run into all sorts of strange theological complications.

God promised Adam and Eve a redeemer who would crush the snake's head. But it wasn't really a snake (Rev 12:9), even though the story tells us the snake spoke to Eve, and it wasn't a snake Jesus defeated at Calvary. If you want to read the account literally, then Jesus didn't actually fulfill the very first messianic prophecy in the bible.

 

[laptoppop]

Of course Jesus referred to himself as 'the son of man', which I don't think any of us takes literally.

Son of man simply means 'human' rather than referring to any literal father. Interestingly though, the Hebrew in verses like Psalm 8:4 is ben adam. Adam means man or mankind, being called a son of Adam is simply to be human.

Granted -- just as has been pointed out that "son" in that culture can mean "ancestor" just as readily. I still marvel/wonder/puzzle at Jesus being fully man and fully God.

But not the snake.

Because Jesus didn't step on a snake's head as God promised Eve in the story. Just like Luke's ...son of Adam, son of God, at some stage you have step out of the literal interpretation or you run into all sorts of strange theological complications.

God promised Adam and Eve a redeemer who would crush the snake's head. But it wasn't really a snake (Rev 12:9), even though the story tells us the snake spoke to Eve, and it wasn't a snake Jesus defeated at Calvary. If you want to read the account literally, then Jesus didn't actually fulfill the very first messianic prophecy in the bible.

Touche'. Which of course opens the can of worms - if the snake is actually Satan, then why is the day 24 hours, and the man one particular individual, etc? I think context makes it clear, but I can understand and respect other viewpoints. (off topic, but I loved the "snake" scene in Gibson's passion of the Christ movie!)

 

[JohnR7]

If TEs are correct, then what's the point of the lineage?

If they are correct about what? Population genetics deals with the geneologys. It is said to be the second most popular hobby right now. I have traced my family back to 952 ad so far and I am working on going back further than that. The Hebrews of course trace themselves back to Adam and Eve. Also you can trace the DNA of the Hebrew people back. Although they have a different name for the ancient people so that they do not get confused with modern people.

 

[JohnR7]

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.

There is no reason NOT to accept a literal Adam that lived 6,000 years ago.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is no reason NOT to accept a literal Adam that lived 6,000 years ago.

there are no recent founders effects either within all human or within Jewish people that would indicate such an event. Certainly nothing within 50Ky.

genetics can and has picked up effects like Genghis Khan's prolific Y, events like volcanos at 74Kya creating a bottleneck and the mitochondria "eves". but no hint of an Adam at 6Kya.

that is sufficient reason for me to understand the Adam of Gen 2-5 in a different way then the ancestor of all human beings.

 

[Assyrian]

Granted -- just as has been pointed out that "son" in that culture can mean "ancestor" just as readily. I still marvel/wonder/puzzle at Jesus being fully man and fully God.

Touche'. Which of course opens the can of worms - if the snake is actually Satan, then why is the day 24 hours, and the man one particular individual, etc? I think context makes it clear, but I can understand and respect other viewpoints. (off topic, but I loved the "snake" scene in Gibson's passion of the Christ movie!)

The context actually makes it clear the snake was a snake, without even a hint that it was actually Satan. Even the punishments given by God were punishments tailored for a reptile, not an angel. Yet the rest of the bible shows us that is really what the story was about. The story was not meant literally, instead it was a parable, an allegory.

God never meant us to keep worms in cans. Go ahead let them wriggle free. Maybe the story isn't about a snake tempting two people, but about Satan deceiving the whole world. And maybe the days aren't 24 hour days, or if they are, aren't six consecutive days

 

[knownbeforetime]

But not the snake.

Because Jesus didn't step on a snake's head as God promised Eve in the story. Just like Luke's ...son of Adam, son of God, at some stage you have step out of the literal interpretation or you run into all sorts of strange theological complications.

God promised Adam and Eve a redeemer who would crush the snake's head. But it wasn't really a snake (Rev 12:9), even though the story tells us the snake spoke to Eve, and it wasn't a snake Jesus defeated at Calvary. If you want to read the account literally, then Jesus didn't actually fulfill the very first messianic prophecy in the bible.

The prophecy was metephorical but the event in which God told the prophecy, I believe, was a literal event.

 

[shernren]

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.....

As stumpjumper has pointed out Matthew's genealogy does indeed stop at Abraham. It is clear that Matthew is catering to the rich prophetic heritage of the Jewish revelation, by anchoring Jesus' line in Abraham's he is trying to evoke the memory of the Abrahamic blessing in the memory of predominantly Jewish believers, another strong tie to the Mosaic revelation in a book which is already strongly linked to the Pentateuch.

While Luke's genealogy does indeed go all the way back to Adam. But Luke makes it expressly clear (right from verse 1) that he is specifically addressing the Gentile audience. As such one sees a lot of emphasis on the universality of the gospel in Luke, for example
Jesus' "opening sermon" at Nazareth, the miracles with Gentiles both here and later in Acts, the general emphasis on the excluded - the tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans. The Gentile audience might not readily identify with Jesus fulfilling Abraham's promises, especially seeing the Jews with their exclusivist title of "sons of Abraham" and the conflicts with the Judaizers. Luke, by going back to Adam, emphasizes that Jesus is God incarnate not just in Jewish flesh but in human flesh, that He is accessible not just to sons of Abraham but sons of Adam - which we all are ... no matter whether or not Adam was a historical figure.

 

[artybloke]

I don't think the Holy Spirit is interested in myths and legends....

Why... apart from mere assertion... not?

 

[Assyrian]

The prophecy was metephorical but the event in which God told the prophecy, I believe, was a literal event.

Why? You believe it was a metaphor for Satan's defeat at Calvary. But what has Satan got to do with it? Why should he be punished? According to the story it was a very clever snake who tempted Eve.

The punishment was for the snake's crime, it was to crawl on its belly, eat dust and have its head crushed. I see no switch from literal to metaphorical there. Why did the snake and its descendants crawl on their bellies and 'eat dust', but the snake who was actually responsible for the fall of mankind, and all the death and evil that followed, escaped getting its head crushed by the Messiah?

You are quite right, it is a metaphor for Satan's defeat by Jesus Christ at Calvary, but it only makes sense if the whole story of the snake tempting Eve is a metaphor for an angel deceiving mankind. After all, it wasn't a very clever reptile who deceived us, was it?

 

[knownbeforetime]

I had a lengthy post written out that just got erased. I really should type these things out in Word first... This is about the third time this week a lengthy post (not just here but on other sites) has been erased before it could be saved...

To artybloke: The Holy Spirit is concerned with truth. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth several times. John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

And not only the Spirit, but Jesus himself. He claimed to be the embodiment of truth and yet people claim that he was descended from mythical people.

To Assyrian: I have to admit I'm confused by your post. (Of course, it might have something to do with the fact that I'm tired, I'm bored, and I have better things to do....)

Satan turned himself into a serpent. Angels have demonstrated this ability to "shapeshift" in other passages of scripture. Why did God curse all serpents when it was really Satan? Maybe, this is just MHO, to prevent anyone else from trusting serpents in the future and to make the serpent a symbol from thereon of what happened in the beginning?

And what are those creatures in your signature?

 

[Assyrian]

I had a lengthy post written out that just got erased. I really should type these things out in Word first... This is about the third time this week a lengthy post (not just here but on other sites) has been erased before it could be saved...

Ouch. I hate when that happens. When I am finding a post is getting longer, I copy and past it into wordpad to keep it safe. But I still lose posts

To artybloke: The Holy Spirit is concerned with truth. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth several times. John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Yet Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit spoke to us in parables. Truth does not always mean literal.

And not only the Spirit, but Jesus himself. He claimed to be the embodiment of truth and yet people claim that he was descended from mythical people.

There is a difference between being descended from mythical people and having your ancestry described figuratively.

To Assyrian: I have to admit I'm confused by your post. (Of course, it might have something to do with the fact that I'm tired, I'm bored, and I have better things to do....)

Been there, done that, bought the pillow.

Satan turned himself into a serpent. Angels have demonstrated this ability to "shapeshift" in other passages of scripture. Why did God curse all serpents when it was really Satan? Maybe, this is just MHO, to prevent anyone else from trusting serpents in the future and to make the serpent a symbol from thereon of what happened in the beginning?

But Genesis does not describe Satan transforming himself into a snake. We are told it was an actual snake that did the temptation. It was able to do it, not because it was an angel in disguise, but because it was more crafty than any other beast of the field.

If Satan can shapeshift (where do you get that idea?), there seems little point in just warning people about snakes, the next time it could be lion, wolf or mongoose. But it does seem really unfair to punish snakes for a crime committed by a completely different life form that was simply disguised as a snake.

But I do agree, the serpent was a symbol of what happened in the beginning, but it was a symbol all through the story.

And what are those creatures in your signature?

Ammonites

 

[philadiddle]

This is all very interesting, but my question still hasn't been answered. I have to say this is the first time since becoming a TE that this forum has failed to answer a seemingly simple question. From a TE perspective, we know adam is figurative, but if u go down through the list, where specifically does it go from figurative to real ppl?

 

[Assyrian]

I would think that:
(1) The question is irrelevant as we are not dealing with an inspired, divinely authorised genealogy, but with what Luke tells us was simply a 'supposed' genealogy.

But

(2) Even though it was only the supposed genealogy, it was based, I think, on the one in 1Chron 1. Now this is interesting in the way the chronicler deals with the different parts of the genealogy. The antediluvians are simply listed Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It is only after the flood we see any discussion of who was the son of who, or who begat who. So after the flood, the chronicler seems to treat the characters much more historically, simply listing without comment the earlier ones.

 

[artybloke]

To artybloke: The Holy Spirit is concerned with truth.

And that precludes the use of myth why? Myths are true; they're just not factual.