• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! 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!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by Vance, Sep 7, 2004.

  1. samwise gamgee

    samwise gamgee Member Supporter

    113
    +45
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Republican
    Everyone has two genealogies because everyone has two parents. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph who was the legal father of Jesus even though he wasn't the biological father. It was through him that Jesus inherited the right to be king of the Jews. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.

    The genealogies of Jesus
     
  2. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,085
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    No, that won't work, either. We have two contradictory genealogies through Joseph. Both purport to be genealogies for Joseph; neither is for Mary. And they don't even agree on the father of Joseph. Saying one is a legal fiction won't change the fact that they are mutually contradictory.
     
  3. samwise gamgee

    samwise gamgee Member Supporter

    113
    +45
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Republican
    Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. Luke tells the story of the birth of Jesus from Mary's point of view, telling how Gabriel told her she would have a child, and omitting any details of how Joseph felt about the situation. It makes sense that he would give us Mary's genealogy rather than Joseph's.
     
  4. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,085
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Nope. Both purport to be for Jesus through Joseph. Both can't be iiteral genealogies.
     
  5. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member Supporter

    +310
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You should learn Jewish ways of doing genealogy and look more closely at the Scriptures!

    Lukes gospel shows Mary's lineage. Joseph was the supposed father here.

    Matthew lists Josephs lineage actually. A little research bears this out!
     
  6. ExTiff

    ExTiff Active Member

    473
    +96
    United Kingdom
    Anglican
    Married
    Not unbiblical if Jesus referred to 'Adam' using the meaning of Adam's actual name, which is 'mankind' or even human-kind. The Hebrew name is clearly intended to metaphorically make the character representative of all mankind, (both male and female), since female was created, according to the legend, from 'half of Adam', the same Hebrew word translated 'rib' in Genesis, is translated as 'side' when used to describe the Ark of the Covenant. The ark of the covenant had no ribs, so what were the translators thinking of there then?

    Legends still work as examples, even if the characters are legendary. In fact they work even better if they are legendary than if they were merely 'historical'.

    Jesus Christ was certainly descended from 'mankind' just as we all surely are. By referring to Adam as a character it is not essential for Christ to have believed Adam to have been an actual person, though he may well have, (most people did in 1st century Palestine). It would have been quite feasible for Jesus to have referred to Romeo and Juliet as an illustrative example of lovers, had Shakespeare written about them 600 years BC. It would not necessarily follow that Jesus believed they actually existed as persons, or that the fact that they were not would preclude the use of them as legendary characters, as an example in his preaching, to make a point. I believe that is what he was doing when he referred to Adam and Eve in connection with marriage in his dispute with the Pharisees. He was almost certainly not trying to establish without doubt the historicity of Adam as an individual human being. He was just refuting the error of the Pharisees concerning the sanctity of marriage in terms they could easily understand.

    Regards.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
  7. Brightmoon

    Brightmoon Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

    +3,069
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    US-Others
    Every person has 2 parents. They’ve got 4 grandparents and 8 great great grands . Each generation back doubles the ancestors. If you go back 40 generations or have 2^40 ( 2 to the 40th power)ancestors then everyone now alive shares a common ancestry because that’s more humans than have ever lived. If a generation is about 25 years then that’s about a 1000 years ago
     
  8. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,085
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Almost everyone who lived 10,000 years ago, has no descendants living today. Only a few lucky ones, especially those males who fathered a lot of children by a lot of different women, have their line continue.

    The odds of having fertile descendants that manage to reproduce over every single generation are pretty small, unless you leave a lot of descendants, or your family is extraordinarily wealthy and/or powerful.
     
Loading...