PDA

View Full Version : Do people exist today who are related to Jesus Christ?


LadyEagle
01-08-2006, 12:24 AM
(besides the obvious), meaning from Jesus' half-sisters & half-brothers (same mom, different dad):

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/jesustre.html

Helen
01-08-2006, 01:07 AM
There is no reason why not. And every reason why they do not know it!

standingfirminChrist
01-08-2006, 01:27 AM
LadyEagle,

I would say there would have to be blood descendants from Joseph's line, unless by chance all were killed or died before producing offspring. Would be interesting to trace the geneaology.

Linda64
01-08-2006, 11:58 PM
The existence of the Jewish people as a distinct race, chosen by God (Deut.7:6-10)is a miracle--the fact that the nation of Israel exists is another miracle and attests that God has not forsaken His chosen people, Israel.

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face. (Deuteronomy 7:6-10)

Since Jesus Christ was in the lineage of the tribe of Judah and Jewish, I believe there are probably Jewish people alive today who are (physically) related to Him.

However, we need to remember that we, as born again, blood washed believers in Christ (Jew and Gentile) are heirs of our Heavenly Father and joint-heirs with Christ---PTL! (Gal.3:28-29; Rom.8:17) graemlins/thumbs.gif

eloidalmanutha
01-09-2006, 12:48 AM
Matt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, your mother and your brethren stand without, desiring to speak with you. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Jesus does not have physical descendents. He was conceived of Spirit - not by the will or desire of man, fully human - yes, and fully God. His half brothers rejected Him, other than James and Jude. He is God, manifest in the flesh, not physically related to anyone. I think Jesus said it all, don't you? :D

[ January 09, 2006, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: eloidalmanutha ]

MNJacob
01-09-2006, 11:04 AM
Me, I'm adopted.

PTL

Artimaeus
01-09-2006, 11:22 AM
bttt...odds are.

Brother Ian
01-09-2006, 11:42 AM
Statistically, I would say yes.

webdog
01-09-2006, 02:27 PM
A firm 'no'. Jesus was not born of Mary, but the Holy Spirit. There are decendants of Mary and Joseph...but they are not direct descendents of Jesus.

standingfirminChrist
01-09-2006, 02:41 PM
The question was not are there any direct descendents of Jesus Christ, but rather, Are there people alive today who are related to Jesus Christ..

Joseph was not Jesus' natural father, but Mary was His natural mother. It is highly possible that Jesus' half-brothers or half-sisters had children and carried that blood line. They would be related to Jesus

Paul of Eugene
01-09-2006, 02:54 PM
You know, it occurs to me that we simply do not know if the process of producing Jesus in Mary's womb actually involved using her fertilized egg or if, as part of the miraculous conception involved, the human origin egg as well as the human origin sperm were both bypassed. We can speculate but we cannot know. But if the egg were indeed also bypassed, then no man alive could ever be genetically related to Jesus.

So that's one of those minor mysteries we'll have to wait for heaven to answer, along with just which twelve apostle names are carved into the foundations of the New Jerusalem . . .

russell55
01-09-2006, 03:03 PM
Jesus was not born of Mary, but the Holy Spirit. Huh? Those two things are not necessarily contradictory. The scripture tells us Jesus was born of Mary. He was also conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Mary was not just an incubator, but the actual biological mother of Jesus. And Mary's other children were then biologically related to Jesus, so any of their descendents would be biologically related to Jesus.

Are there any of them alive today? How would we know? Some biological lines do die out over time, but it's certainly possible that there are people who are biologically related to Jesus alive today.

eloidalmanutha
01-09-2006, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
You know, it occurs to me that we simply do not know if the process of producing Jesus in Mary's womb actually involved using her fertilized egg or if, as part of the miraculous conception involved, the human origin egg as well as the human origin sperm were both bypassed. We can speculate but we cannot know. But if the egg were indeed also bypassed, then no man alive could ever be genetically related to Jesus.

So that's one of those minor mysteries we'll have to wait for heaven to answer, along with just which twelve apostle names are carved into the foundations of the New Jerusalem . . . I would definitely agree with the gist of your statements. When the angel appeared to Mary, he said that the power of the Holy Spirit would overshadow her and she would conceive the Messiah. His conception was a supernatural event and a miracle. Mary was an ends to the means. The incubator - perhaps "surrogate mother" for lack of a better word smile.gif [ducking :eek: ] She is NOT the mother of God, nor are her subsequent children blood relatives of Jesus.

Scott J
01-09-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
You know, it occurs to me that we simply do not know if the process of producing Jesus in Mary's womb actually involved using her fertilized egg or if, as part of the miraculous conception involved, the human origin egg as well as the human origin sperm were both bypassed. We can speculate but we cannot know. But if the egg were indeed also bypassed, then no man alive could ever be genetically related to Jesus.

So that's one of those minor mysteries we'll have to wait for heaven to answer, along with just which twelve apostle names are carved into the foundations of the New Jerusalem . . . Actually wasn't the prophesied Messiah said to be the "seed" of woman?

Scott J
01-09-2006, 06:47 PM
Just noticed the citation of the angel's promise that Mary would conceive of the Holy Spirit. That seems most definitely to imply that her egg was used.

Brother Ian
01-09-2006, 08:02 PM
It was her egg or else Jesus would not have been human.

LadyEagle
01-09-2006, 08:57 PM
Exactly, Brother Ian.

Now, let me repeat the question again for those who misunderstood.

I didn't ask if there were descendants of Jesus. There are not.

Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters because He shared the same mother. (Mary's egg for Him, Mary's eggs for the other children she bore.) Those half-sisters and half-brothers would have probably gotten married and had children. And on and on.

It was a rhetorical question, having nothing to do with Jesus being the Son of God or Jesus having descendants.

standingfirminChrist
01-09-2006, 09:03 PM
Scott J,

The woman does not have the seed, the man has the seed.

The ground cannot produce fruit unless a seed is planted first.

And yes, the fact that Jesus had a flesh, blood and bone body proves that He was the product not only of the seed of God, but the egg of the woman.

RayMarshall19
01-09-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Scott J,

And yes, the fact that Jesus had a flesh, blood and bone body proves that He was the product not only of the seed of God, but the egg of the woman. I am not aware of any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that PROVES God needed an egg cell in order to give Jesus flesh and bone. In fact, the scriptures I've studied tend to make me believe just the opposite. If you have evidence of which I am not aware that PROVES God used Mary's egg in Jesus's conception would you please share it with the rest of us?
Thanks.

Scarlett O.
01-09-2006, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Scott J:
Actually wasn't the prophesied Messiah said to be the "seed" of woman? Oh, Scott, you stole my line! graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

I was just getting ready to say that. So I'll say it anyway. Yes, Genesis, chapter 3 refers to Jesus as the "seed of the woman". That implies humanity, fully and wholely.

Jesus has been God and will be God for all of eternity. But for 33 years, Jesus was fully human and fully God at the same time. He is not fully human anymore.

And yes, there are more than likely many people and not just Jewish people (probably of every race) who are physically related to Jesus simply because they are physical descendents of his brothers and sisters.

But after this much time has passed, the relation is really negligible and moot.

Nobody has any bragging rights. No one knows. No one can say, "Jesus is my uncle 37 times removed!"

It's possible to be, but not to know.

Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><

Karen
01-09-2006, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
.......Jesus has been God and will be God for all of eternity. But for 33 years, Jesus was fully human and fully God at the same time. He is not fully human anymore.
..........I think you misunderstand. Jesus' Incarnation did not end at the Ascension. It is for eternity.

Karen

webdog
01-10-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Brother Ian:
It was her egg or else Jesus would not have been human. If it was her egg, Jesus would have been born a sinner as Mary was a sinner. The entire conception was from the Holy Spirit.

mountainrun
01-10-2006, 01:22 AM
Not so, webdog. As I recall, the sin is passed through the father.

MR

mountainrun
01-10-2006, 01:59 AM
I had to look it up...
=================
Romans 5:12
Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men..
===============

Both Adam and Eve sinned but the Bible tells us that sin entered through the man and that the seed of the woman would save us.

Why it is this way I don't know.

But it is.

MR

RayMarshall19
01-10-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by mountainrun:
I had to look it up...
=================
Romans 5:12
Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men..
===============

Both Adam and Eve sinned but the Bible tells us that sin entered through the man and that the seed of the woman would save us.

Why it is this way I don't know.

But it is.

MR Just because sin ENTERED the world through the man does not mean it CONTINUES only via the man. Is there scripture to indicate that this is the case?

buckster75
01-10-2006, 07:00 PM
I'm an addopted son of God making me addopted brother of Jesus. Does that count?

mountainrun
01-10-2006, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
Just because sin ENTERED the world through the man does not mean it CONTINUES only via the man. Is there scripture to indicate that this is the case? You are attempting to prove your argument from a negative.

I could use the same tactic in saying that there is no scripture to indicate that this is NOT the case.

I could say whatever I want about anything the Bible does not clearly address based on either argument and could not be proven wrong.

So, do you have any scripture to prove that Mary's egg was not used?

See my point? graemlins/laugh.gif


MR

RayMarshall19
01-10-2006, 09:39 PM
No, I don't see your point.

I don't have an argument to prove because I didn't make a statement I need to defend. You made POSITIVE statement "the sin is passed through the father." I simply pointed out that ENTERING the world is not the same as being PASSED down.

I fully understand the logical problem of proving, or disproving, a negative. If something didn't happen it didn't leave evidence but the lack of evidence doesn't prove it didn't happen because it could have happened without leaving evidence. In this case lack of evidence would be the lack of scripture, and I'm not sure that the case. But that's not the immediate issue.

Right now, what I'm asking is for YOU to PROVE the POSITIVE statement that YOU made: "the sin is passed through the father."

LadyEagle
01-10-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Ian:
It was her egg or else Jesus would not have been human. If it was her egg, Jesus would have been born a sinner as Mary was a sinner. The entire conception was from the Holy Spirit. </font>[/QUOTE]Good point. I used to believe that too, until I got here on the board. Then I was told I was a heretic for my beliefs and for believing Jesus had Divine Blood.

Therefore, I repeal my previous post about the egg and also this topic. graemlins/thumbs.gif

The answer must be no.

Linda64
01-10-2006, 10:03 PM
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

How does one interpret this verse?

mountainrun
01-10-2006, 10:20 PM
I DID prove it with scripture, Ray.

You want me to prove that this is still true.

A man in our church stated that he did not believe that God communicates with us to day because, when shown scripture to prove it, he said he didn't see anything that said it was still in effect today.

This is what you have done and no, I cannot prove that the Bible is still in effect, only that God said so and there is no scripture to cancel it.

If you believe that God must constantly reaffirm His word else it is no longer valid I cannot disprove you.

MR

RayMarshall19
01-10-2006, 11:03 PM
No, you did not prove your statement "sin is passed through the father."

I don't question that sin entered the world through one man. You don't need to prove that. But, once again, ENTERING and PASSING DOWN are not the same thing.

What you need to prove is your claim that sin is PASSED DOWN only via the male parent and not the female parent.

mountainrun
01-10-2006, 11:53 PM
Mary was Jesus mother and Jesus was without sin.

I believe she was a female parent although the Bible does not specifically say so, therefore I cannot prove it.


MR

EdSutton
01-10-2006, 11:56 PM
Temper, temper, let's try to hold it down to a rumble and not get too far out of hand. But I got a comment on something Paul of Eugene said that might tie two things together, actually. Concerning which twelve names in the foundation of NJ, wonder if 'Lord Jesus Christ' will be one? Ed

benz
01-11-2006, 12:10 AM
Arent we all?
Since well all are from Adam and eve originally we are technically all brothers and sisters..and that includes mary maybe im wrong ;)

mountainrun
01-11-2006, 12:10 AM
No, I don't think so, Ed.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This seems to indicate that only the names of the apostles are there.

Aren't we wandering off a bit in the last pages?

:confused:

MR

Hope of Glory
01-11-2006, 12:35 AM
I was reading somewhere that genetically, no two people are further removed than 16th cousins. I don't know the validity of this statement, so don't hold me to it.

eloidalmanutha
01-11-2006, 12:40 AM
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job 15:14 What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?

RayMarshall19
01-11-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by mountainrun:
Mary was Jesus mother and Jesus was without sin.

I believe she was a female parent although the Bible does not specifically say so, therefore I cannot prove it.


MR I would agree that "mother" and "female parent" are synonymous. My use of both terms was not intended to trick you.

The question still remains, do you have any PROOF for your original statement that started this discussion: "the sin is passed through the father."?

Scarlett O.
01-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
I was reading somewhere that genetically, no two people are further removed than 16th cousins. I don't know the validity of this statement, so don't hold me to it. We are all related because of Noah and his family being the ONLY family to repopulate the earth.

I would think, however, that it would have to more then 16 times removed.

I read (and i know, one can "read" anything) that the 6 billion+ people today are no more distantly related than 50th cousin.

However, whether is it 16 times removed or 50 times removed....we are all "cousins" to some insignificant and unaccountable degree.

Peace-
Scarlett O.
&lt;&gt;&lt;

Hope of Glory
01-11-2006, 03:38 PM
I'm talking genetically. You know, sort of like the six degrees of separation. For example, I discovered while doing a genealogy that I used to date a cousin. I never knew it. What would have happened if we had gotten married and had kids? Nothing genetically, as it is distant enough not to create a problem with recessive genes, but if not for the genealogical research that I did, our kids could have married cousins that they didn't know were cousins, etc. How about adopted kids?

Now, I know we all descended through Noah and his kids, but how do you know that your mother's aunt Ada 5 times removed isn't related to your husband's Uncle Elroy?

mountainrun
01-12-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
[QUOTE]The question still remains, do you have any PROOF for your original statement that started this discussion: "the sin is passed through the father."? No. It simply the only conclusion that can be drawn given the scriptures that Jesus would be the seed of Abrahmam and David.

If Mary's egg were not used then He could be said to be her descendent I suppose but would have absolutely no connection to anyone else.

Certain disorders are passed only through one gender. Hemophilia for example can only be passed through the female {X}chromosome.

Jesus did not have an earthly father
and was sinless.

If He did not have Mary's genetics, then He is not a descendant of Abraham or David and the Bible is false in the matter.

I cannot prove the Trinity by direct passage either, but it is the only conclusion that can be drawn.

This is all I have to say on the matter, Ray.

I do not argue simply to have the last word.

MR

EdSutton
01-12-2006, 09:50 AM
I'm baa-aack! graemlins/wave.gif
MR (Hey, cuz!) is no doubt basically correct, as are many of you here, Ray, hope, Scarlett, benz, and I ain't even going to try some of the other names here, et al. graemlins/thumbs.gif
I'm related to all of you- ;) ; I'm your brother, whether you like it or not- :rolleyes: - "'cause I've been adopted, my name's written down...", as well as your cousin. Ergo, I'm also a 'cousin' of the Lord Jesus, as well. The adopted part is what counts! graemlins/thumbs.gif
I happen to have two things I always tell people, who are 'overly concerned', IMO, about ancestry, and kinship. "I know, and I'm proud of who I go back to, and that's Adam and Noah! Yup!, i go back to a crooked farmer and and a drunken sailor! graemlins/laugh.gif
I hope everyone has a great 2006, and gets a chuckle or two from some of my posts, and always remember, cousins, "You can pick your friends, but you're stuck with your relatives!" graemlins/laugh.gif
Ed graemlins/wave.gif

RayMarshall19
01-12-2006, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by mountainrun:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
The question still remains, do you have any PROOF for your original statement that started this discussion: "the sin is passed through the father."? No. It simply the only conclusion that can be drawn given the scriptures that Jesus would be the seed of Abrahmam and David.

If He did not have Mary's genetics, then He is not a descendant of Abraham or David and the Bible is false in the matter.

MR </font>I don't "argue" to have the last word, either. I "discuss" issues in an effort to educate myself or others.

You made a statement and I asked for proof because I was not aware of any and wanted to learn about it if there were some.

You did not provide any proof and ended by stating that if your conclusion is wrong then the Bible must be false. There are a lot of Bible scholars that disagree with this statement.

Paul of Eugene
01-12-2006, 12:53 PM
Remember the words of John the Baptist, "I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise children unto Abraham".

John, then, did not connect the dots and realize that it takes a genetic link between descendant and forebearer. It only took the action of God, in his mind.

John, of course, didn't even know about DNA anyway.

I still say that on the issue of the egg source for Jesus I will never know the answer until I get to heaven and somebody there Who knows tells me.

mountainrun
01-12-2006, 02:52 PM
"I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise children unto Abraham".

Good point, Paul.

Hmmm.

MR

KeithS
01-12-2006, 03:52 PM
...the virgin shall conceive...

Seems pretty clear to me.

mountainrun
01-12-2006, 06:36 PM
Yes, I have a hard time considering Jesus a descendant of Abraham and David if He is not actually descended from them.

But Paul does caution us against quarrelling over words.

MR

webdog
01-12-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by KeithS:
...the virgin shall conceive...

Seems pretty clear to me. Surrogate mothers "conceive" too. The baby they carry is in no relation to them, however. I believe this to be true with Jesus and Mary. Not once did Jesus ever call Mary His mother...but "woman".

SAMPLEWOW
01-12-2006, 07:09 PM
well Jesus is my fatherso I think that I am related. :cool:

mountainrun
01-13-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KeithS:
...the virgin shall conceive...

Seems pretty clear to me. Surrogate mothers "conceive" too. The baby they carry is in no relation to them, however. I believe this to be true with Jesus and Mary. Not once did Jesus ever call Mary His mother...but "woman". </font>[/QUOTE]This is what I've tried to address, webdog.

If Jesus is not related to Mary then he is not descended from Abraham and David.

The reason for the geneologies is to prove his lineage, which he does not have under the surrogate mother scenario.

Ah, well. I'm going to let this one drop since we have started in circles.

{However, I do believe that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, called Mary His mother.}

MR

RayMarshall19
01-13-2006, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by mountainrun:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KeithS:
...the virgin shall conceive...

Seems pretty clear to me. Surrogate mothers "conceive" too. The baby they carry is in no relation to them, however. I believe this to be true with Jesus and Mary. Not once did Jesus ever call Mary His mother...but "woman". </font>[/QUOTE]This is what I've tried to address, webdog.

If Jesus is not related to Mary then he is not descended from Abraham and David.

The reason for the geneologies is to prove his lineage, which he does not have under the surrogate mother scenario.


MR </font>[/QUOTE]If the geneologies are there to prove Jesus's lineage then why is Joseph's included?

Hope of Glory
01-13-2006, 10:59 AM
To give is regal lineage.

webdog
01-13-2006, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by mountainrun:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KeithS:
...the virgin shall conceive...

Seems pretty clear to me. Surrogate mothers "conceive" too. The baby they carry is in no relation to them, however. I believe this to be true with Jesus and Mary. Not once did Jesus ever call Mary His mother...but "woman". </font>[/QUOTE]This is what I've tried to address, webdog.

If Jesus is not related to Mary then he is not descended from Abraham and David.

The reason for the geneologies is to prove his lineage, which he does not have under the surrogate mother scenario.

Ah, well. I'm going to let this one drop since we have started in circles.

{However, I do believe that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, called Mary His mother.}

MR </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. An adopted son carries on the name of the family. The same would be true of a child birthed by a woman with no genetical connection, and still being raised by that same woman carrying on the family name. Mary was the mother of Jesus (caretaker), not the mother OF Jesus. Jesus, therefore, would be from the lineage of Mary and Joseph.

Ransom
01-13-2006, 01:27 PM
Jesus, therefore, would be from the lineage of Mary and Joseph.

If Jesus was not the physical descendent of Mary, he was not a descendant of Adam, and hence not a member of the human race.

mountainrun
01-13-2006, 01:28 PM
Joseph's lineage is given because he was considered the legal father of Jesus even if he was not the biological father.

Legally, his lineage must be traced to David.

MR

mountainrun
01-13-2006, 01:33 PM
webdog---"Mary was the mother of Jesus (caretaker), not the mother OF Jesus. "

snipped


:rolleyes:


Time for me to bow out LOL, literally.
Oh, brother.

MR

Bro. James
01-13-2006, 02:23 PM
This question introduces all sorts of interesting subjects: Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virgin, Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, Apparitions, Divinity of Jesus, Regal and Legal geneologies of Jesus and several others.

Where shall we start? "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women; and blessed is the fruit of thy womb--Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death, amen"

These words are repeated--for praise and absolution of sin.

The largest "Christian" denomination teaches that Mary is an intercessor, in fact, a co-redemptrix. How can this be true?

Comments? Questions?

Selah,

Bro. James

RayMarshall19
01-13-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Ransom:
Jesus, therefore, would be from the lineage of Mary and Joseph.

If Jesus was not the physical descendent of Mary, he was not a descendant of Adam, and hence not a member of the human race. Quoting John the Baptist: Matthew 3:9: ‘ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham."

If God could raise up children of Abraham from stones don't you think he could create a "member of the human race" without Mary's egg?

Ransom
01-13-2006, 03:50 PM
If God could raise up children of Abraham from stones don't you think he could create a "member of the human race" without Mary's egg?

John the Baptist was speaking figuratively. It is literally impossible for a rock turned into a man to be a descendant of Abraham, just as it is literally impossible for there to be such a thing as a married bachelor or a square circle.

Such a creature as you describe might be biologically human, but he would not be a descendant of Adam, and hence he is no substitute for the sins of Adam's race.

RayMarshall19
01-13-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Ransom:
If God could raise up children of Abraham from stones don't you think he could create a "member of the human race" without Mary's egg?

John the Baptist was speaking figuratively. It is literally impossible for a rock turned into a man to be a descendant of Abraham, just as it is literally impossible for there to be such a thing as a married bachelor or a square circle.

Such a creature as you describe might be biologically human, but he would not be a descendant of Adam, and hence he is no substitute for the sins of Adam's race. So, you think you can read John's mind two millenia later? Nonsense.

And you presume to tell us what it is "literally impossible" for God to do? Blasphemy.

If God wants to make literal descendants of Adam from stones He can do it. Just because you can't understand the process doesn't make it impossible.

And, juvenile word games don't merit a response.

RayMarshall19
01-13-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by mountainrun:
Joseph's lineage is given because he was considered the legal father of Jesus even if he was not the biological father.

Legally, his lineage must be traced to David.

MR His lineage is traced to David via both Joseph and Mary, but that doesn't mean Mary's egg was used in conception any more than Joseph' sperm was.

I will refer you to this web page and an article written by Henry Morris, former president of the Institute for Creation Research. His explanation is much better than I could ever do.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=76

Ransom
01-13-2006, 07:43 PM
RayMarshall19 said:

And you presume to tell us what it is "literally impossible" for God to do? Blasphemy.

All right, you explain to us: Supposing God did literally turn a stone into a literal descendant of Abraham, how would you trace his lineage back to Abraham? Where would that stone fit into Abraham's family tree? Who would be his parents?

Would God also have to retroactively create an entire family tree for the stone? And if he did, then isn't it true that John the Baptist wouldn't have any stones to point at, because all concerned would already perceive them as pedigreed children of Abraham?

If God wants to make literal descendants of Adam from stones He can do it.

Except that, if they were originally stones, then by definition they wouldn't be literal descendants of Adam, unless one of Adam's children literally gave birth to stones.

Just because you can't understand the process doesn't make it impossible.

Just because you call my arguments "blasphemy" doesn't make it possible.

RayMarshall19
01-13-2006, 10:30 PM
Previously you said it is "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a rock turned into a man to be a descendant of Abraham". Now you refer to "turn(ing) a stone into a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Abraham". That's not the same argument. In addition, you frame the discussion with your own definition of "literal descendant" which you apparently believe would make it impossible for God to be successful.

But it doesn't matter because in either case God is not governed by YOUR limited, mortal ability to reason and understand.

The scripture did not say God would create “literal descendants” as YOU define them. It just says He would raise up children of Abraham. They may be “literal descendants” or something else altogether. I don’t know. But I do know that God, not you, has the right to decide the definition of “children of Abraham” and the process by which He would create them.

My dictionary gives this definition for blasphemy: "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes or rights of God."

Your arguments meet this definition. That is why what you wrote is blasphemy.

I'll say it again: Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't make it impossible. God's Word says it IS possible, and that's all I really NEED to know.

Ransom
01-13-2006, 10:45 PM
RayMarshall19 said:

Previously you said it is "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a rock turned into a man to be a descendant of Abraham". Now you refer to "turn(ing) a stone into a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Abraham". That's not the same argument.

It is literally impossible for a rock to become a literal descendant of Abraham, hence it is, in fact, the same argument.

In addition, you frame the discussion with your own definition of "literal descendant" which you apparently believe would make it impossible for God to be successful.

literal (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=literal): adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

descendant (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/descendant): proceeding from an ancestor or source

A literal descendant of Abraham would therefore be one who has Abraham as an ancestor.

That's not my "own definition," that is according to the generally accepted definition of "literal" and "descendant."

But it doesn't matter because in either case God is not governed by YOUR limited, mortal ability to reason and understand.

God is, however, governed by his own character, which is reasonable and rational. Turning a rock, which was never in the lineage of Abraham, into a descendant of Abraham, is irrational, therefore it is contrary to the character of God.

The scripture did not say God would create “literal descendants” as YOU define them. It just says He would raise up children of Abraham. They may be “literal descendants” or something else altogether.

So descendants of Abraham may not, in fact, be descendants of Abraham? And you took me to task for claiming John wasn't speaking literally? graemlins/laugh.gif

My dictionary gives this definition for blasphemy: "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes or rights of God."

Your arguments meet this definition. That is why what you wrote is blasphemy.

Where, by your definition, have I claimed for myself any attributes of God? Please show me, or retract your false accusation.

RayMarshall19
01-14-2006, 12:48 PM
Just what part of OMNIPOTENT do you not understand? You, a human, do not have the RIGHT to assert that ANYTHING is impossible for God, but you did, and that is what I consider blasphemy by the definition I provided.

Your first post in response to me made your line of mortal reasoning pretty obvious and to suppose you need to explain it further is, I think, a bit arrogant.

And, if you can't see the difference between "literal descendants" and "literally impossible" then the rest of this post may be useless.

But,at the risk of seeming arrogant myself, I will try one more time.

First, and this may surprise you, I completely understand and completely agree with your logic on a HUMAN level. But God is not limited by our defintions of words and phrases and our finite human capabilities to understand them and we must allow for that fact. If God says it is so then it is so.

Perhaps Charlie Daniels can be of help here:

" Jesus walked on the water and I know that is true, But sometimes I think that preacher man'd like to do a little walking too."

No matter how smart you are or how much you study scripture you will never be able to think LIKE God. So you shouldn't try to think FOR Him.

Ransom
01-14-2006, 01:25 PM
RayMarshall19 said:

Just what part of OMNIPOTENT do you not understand?

I understand "omnipotent" just fine. For God to be "omnipotent" means that he is able to do all things that are the proper object of his power. For God, a universe created ex nihilo is the proper object of his power. The dead raised to life are the proper object of his power. Walking on water is the proper object of his power. Scripture records no instance of his turning a stone into a man, but if God wished to do so, that would be the proper object of his power.

Omnipotence does not mean that God is capable of performing any arbitrary act that our minds may conceive of. Such is not necessarily the proper object of God's power. The self-contradictory or absurd are not the proper objects of his power. For example, he cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it (since if God is truly omnipotent, such a rock cannot possibly exist). He cannot create a spherical cube or a married bachelor, since those things are absurd by definition. He cannot change the subject of the previous sentence to, say, rice pudding, since by definition it is not about rice pudding. He cannot alter the past (and if he could, how would we know?).

God cannot act in ways that are contrary to his own nature and character. He cannot lie, for example, for he is the "faithful and true witness" (Jer. 42:5; Num. 23:19; Heb. 6:18). He cannot get lost, since he is omnipresent and omniscient. He cannot die, for he is eternal and not subject to decay or injury.

Turning a hunk of granite not merely into a man, but a man who is descended from Abraham, is a logically absurd act, and furthermore it arguably falls into the category of altering the past (since in order to do so he would have to invent a lineage for the rock that did not previously exist).

Therefore, it is not a proper object of God's power, and it is not a challenge to God's omnipotence, to say that he could not literally do such a thing. John the Baptist must have been speaking figuratively, employing hyperbole to make a point with the Pharisees.

You, a human, do not have the RIGHT to assert that ANYTHING is impossible for God, but you did, and that is what I consider blasphemy by the definition I provided.

By the definition you provided, "blasphemy" consists of claiming the attributes of God for oneself. You have changed your story, sir.

And, if you can't see the difference between "literal descendants" and "literally impossible" then the rest of this post may be useless.

Since I am the one who used those terms myself, I think I am the better qualified to know what I meant by them, wouldn't you agree?

But God is not limited by our defintions of words and phrases and our finite human capabilities to understand them and we must allow for that fact.

Logic is not a human invention. It is a necessary consequence of a rational universe created by a wise, good, and rational God. For God to go against logic is to work contrary to his own nature.

eloidalmanutha
01-14-2006, 03:12 PM
I am really curious why no one bothers to look at God's Word for defining concepts therein.

Hark! [listen up! :rolleyes: ]:

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Act 13:26 Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


***** Please note - it is not according to bloodline [other than Jesus' :D ] but according to FAITH. Stone is ALLEGORY :eek:

Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is no slave nor freeman, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are of Christ, then you are a seed of Abraham, even heirs according to promise.

RayMarshall19
01-14-2006, 09:25 PM
I won't copy your entire post but I will correct ONE point.

You say: "By the definition you provided, "blasphemy" consists of claiming the attributes of God for oneself. You have changed your story, sir."

That is incorrect. My definition of blasphemy included claiming the RIGHTS of God. Only God has the right to say what His own limits are, but you continually attempt to usurp that right. That meets the definition of blasphemy I provided. I did not change my story.

As I said before, your juvenile word games don't merit a response. But I really like your "spherical cube" idea so let me use it to explain. Imagine that your concept of the God's limits is a cube and His own concept of the same is a sphere infinitely larger than your cube. That captures what I've been trying to say.

But wait, I have another analogy that may be even better. I think we can all agree that God likes what is good. But there are two ways to determine what is good. One can look around and, with his limited, mortal abilities, decide what he thinks is "good" and then expect God to like it. Or, he can go to God's word and find out what God says is good and then agree with Him. I use the latter method for determining "good" and the limits of God's omnipotence. It appears to me that your method is closer to the former. I usually avoid cliche's but you are trying to "put God in a box" of your own making.

You posts indicate that you believe you know and understand a lot more about God than I think is possible for you to know and understand. As a result you think you can tell me, and everybody else, what God's limits are in certain situations. I don't think you have that ability or that right.

I think both of us understand the other's position. I also think there is no point to continuing this discussion because we disagree at such a fundamental level.

I would welcome posts from others about the limits of God's omnipotence.

EdSutton
01-15-2006, 03:04 PM
"I would welcome posts from others about the limits of God's omnipotence."
I would describe this as self-limiting, for the most part. Scripture says 'God cannot lie', and in another place that 'when He could swear by none greater, He swore by Himself...'.
Beyond that, off the top of mny head, I dunno'. Guess that's about it for now.
Ed

Ransom
01-15-2006, 03:37 PM
One can look around and, with his limited, mortal abilities, decide what he thinks is "good" and then expect God to like it. Or, he can go to God's word and find out what God says is good and then agree with Him.

Oh? And without using "man's logic" to parse the meaning of Scripture, how do you presume you can possibly understand what God means?

EdSutton
01-15-2006, 03:57 PM
Unfortunatly, I have an eating disorder that seems to want to manifest itself, here.
I'll not take time to even attempt to follow everything anyone writes, on these pages. I get dizzy easily, with low blood sugar, and trying to follow something going round and round contributes to losing my balance and falling off to one side. I did find one thing you all mentioned illuminating. the Scripture said that God was able to raise up of these stones children of Abraham. (I think that's what Ray said word for word, but pobably isn't) If eluth***** (I told you my head is spinning, so am not even trying to look up to the name, copied the verse right and all places of the raise children bit occurs are cited, my take is the Scripture doesn't really mean raising up chldren of Abraham from the stones. ^ We are trying to make it say more than it really means. *^ Adam from stones? yeah, HE was made from the dust of the ground- dirt, in other words, Anyone want to guess where dirt comes from? Hint: It's a 4 and/or 5 letter word. ^*^ real flesh and blood children from Abraham? Naah! @%@ Ed

eloidalmanutha
01-15-2006, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by EdSutton:
Adam from stones? yeah, HE was made from the dust of the ground- dirt, in other words, Anyone want to guess where dirt comes from? Hint: It's a 4 and/or 5 letter word. ^*^ real flesh and blood children from Abraham? Naah! @%@ Ed ROFL :D - right on . . . graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif

mountainrun
01-15-2006, 08:53 PM
Just in passing.

Jesus would have been disqualified from sitting on the throne if he had been physically descended from the line of Joseph.

So this geneology is not to establish His right to the throne.

Joseph was descended from Jechoniah, whom God told that his seed would never sit on the throne.

Mary's line does not include Jechoniah. {sp?}

MR

RayMarshall19
01-17-2006, 02:27 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ransom:
f you can't see the difference between "literal descendants" and "literally impossible" then the rest of this post may be useless.[/b]

Since I am the one who used those terms myself, I think I am the better qualified to know what I meant by them, wouldn't you agree?

No. “Literally impossible to create descendants” and “Impossible to create literal descendants” are two very different statements. I don’t have a problem with “impossible” and “literally impossible” because they mean the same thing. But you changed “descendants” to ‘literal descendants” in order to change its meaning and create a “straw man” to attack. One could use the same process to prove that Jesus did not “literally die” just because He did not remain dead. Miracles render ordinary definitions inadequate.

RayMarshall19
01-17-2006, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Ransom:
One can look around and, with his limited, mortal abilities, decide what he thinks is "good" and then expect God to like it. Or, he can go to God's word and find out what God says is good and then agree with Him.

Oh? And without using "man's logic" to parse the meaning of Scripture, how do you presume you can possibly understand what God means? I think you overestimate the value of man’s intellect. I don’t know how I could make it any clearer. You can take God at His word or, when you don’t like what He says, you can try to put your own words into His mouth.

I will give you the opportunity to have the last word on this matter. Let’s go back to Matthew 3:9, which is where this discussion started: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

In his word study dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates defines the term “raise up” as: cause to be born, create. He defines “children” as: children, descendants, posterity. Nothing there that needs more parsing, is there?

So, here is the one question I have for you: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Is this statement as written in scripture, in its entirety and without modification by you or anyone else, LITERALLY true or is it LITERALLY false?

What’s the last word? True or false?

Ransom
01-17-2006, 07:24 PM
Is this statement as written in scripture, in its entirety and without modification by you or anyone else, LITERALLY true or is it LITERALLY false?

Since this statement is, in my view, not literal at all, it is neither. Your question poses a false dilemma.

From a previous post:

Since I am the one who used those terms myself, I think I am the better qualified to know what I meant by them, wouldn't you agree?

No. “Literally impossible to create descendants” and “Impossible to create literal descendants” are two very different statements.

Since by your admission you think you know what I am talking about better than I do, clearly a rational discussion with you is futile. Well, you had your chance.

RayMarshall19
01-17-2006, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Ransom:
Is this statement as written in scripture, in its entirety and without modification by you or anyone else, LITERALLY true or is it LITERALLY false?

Since this statement is, in my view, not literal at all, it is neither. Your question poses a false dilemma.

From a previous post:

Since I am the one who used those terms myself, I think I am the better qualified to know what I meant by them, wouldn't you agree?

No. “Literally impossible to create descendants” and “Impossible to create literal descendants” are two very different statements.

Since by your admission you think you know what I am talking about better than I do, clearly a rational discussion with you is futile. Well, you had your chance. Once again you evade the question.

I didn't ask you if the statement was literal. I asked you if the statement, as written, is LITERALLY true. ("It's raining cats and dogs" is literally false, at least where I live.) There is a difference. To me it's a big difference and if I can understand it then it should be easy for someone with your obvious intellect and learning to understand, also. This seems similar to the problem you say you have understanding the difference between "literally impossible to create descendants” and “impossible to create literal descendants”.

No, I don't think I know what you are talking about better than you do. I just think what you are saying doesn't make sense. Most people wouldn't take the time to dig through the rhetoric to the faulty logic.

Ransom
01-18-2006, 11:55 AM
I didn't ask you if the statement was literal. I asked you if the statement, as written, is LITERALLY true.

If the statement is figurative, whether or not it is "literally true" is completely irrelevant. Duh!

This is simply more proof that you are unwilling to have a rational discussion. Bye.

RayMarshall19
01-18-2006, 12:34 PM
Declare victory and retreat. Good strategy if you can spin it right.

EdSutton
01-18-2006, 01:30 PM
I need some lessons! Think I'll re-read I & I Peter and John's writings for hints.
Ed