Christ's Furthest Ancestor

[Beetow]

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 agree 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.
_

 

[Beetow]

faq: Can it be known for certain whether Jesus' mom was biologically related to
David?

a: Yes; very easily.

First off: David is said to be Jesus' ancestor.

• Luke 1:32 . . He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.

Now, a clever sophist could construe that verse to mean Jesus was David's
descendant by some other means besides biologically; however the Bible also says:

• Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a bit
ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny;
for example:

• Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny; whereas David's seed is biological because
it's "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

Seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left with Jesus'
mom as the default path of flesh connecting to David's flesh.
_

 

[Beetow]

• 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.

Here's the impression that quite a few folk get from 1Cor 15:45

"The last Adam became a life-giving man"

No, it's supposed to say life-giving spirit. Well; spirits and men are very different forms of life; but this is a mystery related to John 1:1-14 that I do not care to examine at this time.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
Most Christians readily attest that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, when in
reality they believe he's mostly God and only partially Man.

• 1Cor 15:22 . . In Adam all die

Had not Christ been executed, he would've eventually died of old age just like
everybody else because Rom 5:12-14 applied to him due to his biological
connection to Adam; which actually works to our advantage.

• Heb 2:14-17 . . Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their
humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--
that is, the devil --and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their
fear of death.

. . . For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason
he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a
merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make
atonement for the sins of the people.

In other words: Jesus' body wasn't superhuman, i.e. immortal. Prior to his
resurrection, Jesus' body was just as mortal as those of his friends. In point of fact,
it was essential that his body be mortal so he could die for them.

And also, he would not be a true kinsman had his body been immortal. A man
who's never himself walked thru the valley of the shadow of death cannot possibly
be the kind of priest that we can all relate to, viz: he could be a priest, but certainly
not a compassionate priest whom we can trust with our deepest feelings.
_

 

[DieAmartyr]

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 agree 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.
_

Where does this knowledge matter? The bottom line is that knowing one way or the other will not keep you out of hell. Only one name will keep you out of hell and that is the name of Jesus Christ! That is all you need to know!

 

[Beetow]

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, the two
men are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot expect
reasonable people to accept as mere coincidence.
_