Mary's Genealogy

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Eve wasn't made directly from the soil the way that Adam was. She was made of
human material taken from Adam's body. In effect then, Eve was Adam's offspring,
i.e. his first child.

Hence, from then on, even if all of Eve's children had been 100% virgin-conceived,
they would've still been biologically related to Adam seeing as how every part of
her body was made from Adam's body.

So then, unless somebody can prove beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that no
part of Mary's body was in any way biologically related to Eve's body, then we have
to concede that Mary's son Jesus was biologically related to Eve too, and thus
biologically related to Adam.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
It's sometimes suggested that Mary was a surrogate mother. In other words; baby
Jesus was implanted in her womb as an embryo.

But the angel predicted that he would be the result of conception that was to take
place in Mary's body. Well; in order for Mary's body to conceive a baby, her own
ovum would have to be involved.

• Luke 1:31 . .Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you
shall name him Jesus.

• Luke 2:21 . . When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was
named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the
womb.
_

 

[Romanos]

The first part of your thread about Eve being the offspring of Adam is not Nicene Christian Theology, and so I am moving this thread to
World Religion & Speculative Theology.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe,
etc.

Throughout the Bible, it is normally the biological father's side of the family that
determines a child's tribal identity, but in Jesus' case there was no biological father.
So tribal determination defaulted to his biological mother's side.

Mary's situation was unusual but not unbiblical. Inheritance via women became an
expedient back in Num 27:1-8.

Jesus' mom is sometimes alleged to be a member of Levi's tribe due to her
association with Elizabeth (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36). However, Levi and Judah were
brothers, i.e. both men were Leah's sons (Gen 29:34-35). So then Mary and
Elizabeth were cousins due to their association with the same grandma rather than
with the same tribe.
_

 

[JRT]

After well over a thousand years they would be very distant cousins indeed.

 

[pinacled]

.
• Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe,
etc.

Throughout the Bible, it is normally the biological father's side of the family that
determines a child's tribal identity, but in Jesus' case there was no biological father.
So tribal determination defaulted to his biological mother's side.

Mary's situation was unusual but not unbiblical. Inheritance via women became an
expedient back in Num 27:1-8.

Jesus' mom is sometimes alleged to be a member of Levi's tribe due to her
association with Elizabeth (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36). However, Levi and Judah were
brothers, i.e. both men were Leah's sons (Gen 29:34-35). So then Mary and
Elizabeth were cousins due to their association with the same grandma rather than
with the same tribe.
_

Excellent observation.

Yes,
Cousin is the appropriate familial title of the children from different tribes.
Even up to or greater than three or four generations.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

.
Eve wasn't made directly from the soil the way that Adam was. She was made of
human material taken from Adam's body. In effect then, Eve was Adam's offspring,
i.e. his first child.

Hence, from then on, even if all of Eve's children had been 100% virgin-conceived,
they would've still been biologically related to Adam seeing as how every part of
her body was made from Adam's body.

So then, unless somebody can prove beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that no
part of Mary's body was in any way biologically related to Eve's body, then we have
to concede that Mary's son Jesus was biologically related to Eve too, and thus
biologically related to Adam.
_

Perhaps in place of offspring.
Offshoot would be a clearer representaion per english definition.

Hence a rib described as the womans origination. From the hebrew אֶת-הַצֵּלָע(tselal) tsade, lamed, ayin.
A husband as head of his wife is spoken of in doctrine.
Clarity is very important to sound judgement and doctrine.

Blessings Always.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
This information is handy for proving that David was Mary's biological grandfather.

• Rom 1:3 . . [God's] son Jesus Christ our Lord was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word translated "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper' mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to biological progeny and/or spiritual progeny.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the passage below is speaking of spiritual
progeny.

"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise." (Gal 3:29)

However; Rom 1:3 is definitely speaking of biological progeny because David's seed
is according to the flesh, i.e. his body.

Also:

• Acts 2:30 . .Therefore [David] being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would
raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Greek words for "according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ" are not in the
manuscripts. The KJV's editors took the liberty to pencil them into their English
translation.

However, Greek words for "fruit of his loins" are in the manuscript. Those are
reinforced by the wording of the oath at 2Sam 7:12 where again David's seed is
clearly implied to be physical rather than spiritual.

See also Psalm 132:11 where it's said: The Lord has sworn to David, a truth from
which He will not turn back: "Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne."
_

 

[JRT]

Genesis 2 is completely unlike the other Biblical creation accounts such as in Genesis 1, Proverbs 8, Psalm 104 or Job 38. It is a "stand alone" account. It begins with God creating ha'adam from ha'adama. This Hebrew pun literally means "the earth creature from the earth". It is usually quite difficult to preserve a pun in translation from one language to another but in English we might say, "the human from the humus". Note that ha'adam is not yet at this point a proper name but merely indicates what it is. In Hebrew it is a nephesh or "living creature". Note also "it" is not yet a creature with a sexual identification of any kind. We should further note that God's creative action here might be thought of as a form of evolution from a lower state to a higher.

God continues the creative process by producing a "garden" of all vegetation and places the ha'adam there to tend and till it. The care of the garden is entrusted to the care of the earth creature whom we might even think of as the patron saint of the environmental movement. The ha'adam is informed that it may eat of the fruit of any plant except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". This suggests two things. Firstly, the ha'adam is a totally naïve and innocent creature. Without the knowledge of good and evil it lacks even the capability of sin.

Now we are informed that our androgynous ha'adam is lonely. To remedy this God creates the animals and brings them to the ha'adam who names them, thus attaining symbolic power over them. However the ha'adam does not find another creature that would be suitable to overcome it's loneliness. God now intervenes to cast the ha'adam into a deep sleep so as to perform the world's first "sex change operation". The rib taken from the ha'adam is formed into a woman and what remains of the ha'adam is now male. Adam and Eve came into being simultaneously.

 

[pinacled]

Genesis 2 is completely unlike the other Biblical creation accounts such as in Genesis 1, Proverbs 8, Psalm 104 or Job 38. It is a "stand alone" account. It begins with God creating ha'adam from ha'adama. This Hebrew pun literally means "the earth creature from the earth". It is usually quite difficult to preserve a pun in translation from one language to another but in English we might say, "the human from the humus". Note that ha'adam is not yet at this point a proper name but merely indicates what it is. In Hebrew it is a nephesh or "living creature". Note also "it" is not yet a creature with a sexual identification of any kind. We should further note that God's creative action here might be thought of as a form of evolution from a lower state to a higher.

God continues the creative process by producing a "garden" of all vegetation and places the ha'adam there to tend and till it. The care of the garden is entrusted to the care of the earth creature whom we might even think of as the patron saint of the environmental movement. The ha'adam is informed that it may eat of the fruit of any plant except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". This suggests two things. Firstly, the ha'adam is a totally naïve and innocent creature. Without the knowledge of good and evil it lacks even the capability of sin.

Now we are informed that our androgynous ha'adam is lonely. To remedy this God creates the animals and brings them to the ha'adam who names them, thus attaining symbolic power over them. However the ha'adam does not find another creature that would be suitable to overcome it's loneliness. God now intervenes to cast the ha'adam into a deep sleep so as to perform the world's first "sex change operation". The rib taken from the ha'adam is formed into a woman and what remains of the ha'adam is now male. Adam and Eve came into being simultaneously.

Heheh.

 

[Lamb]

Genesis 2 is completely unlike the other Biblical creation accounts such as in Genesis 1, Proverbs 8, Psalm 104 or Job 38. It is a "stand alone" account. It begins with God creating ha'adam from ha'adama. This Hebrew pun literally means "the earth creature from the earth". It is usually quite difficult to preserve a pun in translation from one language to another but in English we might say, "the human from the humus". Note that ha'adam is not yet at this point a proper name but merely indicates what it is. In Hebrew it is a nephesh or "living creature". Note also "it" is not yet a creature with a sexual identification of any kind. We should further note that God's creative action here might be thought of as a form of evolution from a lower state to a higher.

God continues the creative process by producing a "garden" of all vegetation and places the ha'adam there to tend and till it. The care of the garden is entrusted to the care of the earth creature whom we might even think of as the patron saint of the environmental movement. The ha'adam is informed that it may eat of the fruit of any plant except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". This suggests two things. Firstly, the ha'adam is a totally naïve and innocent creature. Without the knowledge of good and evil it lacks even the capability of sin.

Now we are informed that our androgynous ha'adam is lonely. To remedy this God creates the animals and brings them to the ha'adam who names them, thus attaining symbolic power over them. However the ha'adam does not find another creature that would be suitable to overcome it's loneliness. God now intervenes to cast the ha'adam into a deep sleep so as to perform the world's first "sex change operation". The rib taken from the ha'adam is formed into a woman and what remains of the ha'adam is now male. Adam and Eve came into being simultaneously.

That's the most bizarre explanation I've ever read about Adam. What denomination teaches that?

 

[JRT]

That's the most bizarre explanation I've ever read about Adam. What denomination teaches that?

You may find it to be bizarre because you have heard only one interpretation. There are other interpretations that also make good sense. In my estimation the interpretation above actually makes better sense than the traditional one.

 

[Lamb]

You may find it to be bizarre because you have heard only one interpretation. There are other interpretations that also make good sense. In my estimation the interpretation above actually makes better sense than the traditional one.

Which denomination teaches what you have stated in this thread concerning Adam?

 

[Lamb]

You may find it to be bizarre because you have heard only one interpretation. There are other interpretations that also make good sense. In my estimation the interpretation above actually makes better sense than the traditional one.

I did some investigating and it's a Gnostic heresy that Adam was androgynous.

 

[JRT]

I did some investigating and it's a Gnostic heresy that Adam was androgynous.

The early church fathers were much like tennis players volleying heresy accusations back and forth. I make up my own mind on what is heresy and what is not. There is not a Christian in this world that is not a heretic to some other Christian. As a consequence I do not hurl heresy accusations nor do I concern myself with being accused of being one.

 

[hedrick]

That's the most bizarre explanation I've ever read about Adam. What denomination teaches that?

That's a pretty standard exegesis of Ex 2. I think any mainline or Catholic scholar would consider it reasonable, although different people would have different details.

Incidentally, there's rabbinical precedent for considering Adam or Adam and Eve androgynous. https://www.learnreligions.com/what-was-the-androgyne-2076659 I'm not so sure that it's unambiguous that Adam is originally androgynous. However it is true that the word is generic for human, and the responsibilities and commands given to him before the creation of Eve are general human responsibilities. So de facto he is treated as a representative human, not specifically male, until the creation of Eve.

There's one other aspect of the story I've seen comment on: Eve is a fit companion for Adam primarily because of their similarity. The emphasis is not on gender complementarity, although there is some of that implicit in 2:24

 

[hedrick]

.
It's sometimes suggested that Mary was a surrogate mother. In other words; baby
Jesus was implanted in her womb as an embryo.

But the angel predicted that he would be the result of conception that was to take
place in Mary's body. Well; in order for Mary's body to conceive a baby, her own
ovum would have to be involved.

• Luke 1:31 . .Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you
shall name him Jesus.

• Luke 2:21 . . When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was
named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the
womb.
_

I think both this answer and the question are imposing modern biology on an account that wasn't written in those terms. Here's the best open (i.e. not requiring login) account of Biblical ideas on conception I was able to find: https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/opth/6/1/article-p132.xml. I don't see a specific idea of just what the husband and wife contributed to the chlld. But the article gives several examples of where God's action was the primary thing causing a conception. This didn't imply any unusual biology.

There have been lots of discussions about Jesus' conception that try to put questions to the text involving modern biology or later Christian ideas of original sin, that surely aren't there in the text. Matthew and Luke combine their narrative with geneologies involving Joseph. Translating this into modern genetics is speculative, and maybe even a mistake. But it doesn't appear that they thought the unusual conception presented any problems in considering Joseph to be his father. There's no suggestion that Jesus was adopted, or any of the other things typically suggested in this context.

Since this can only be speculative, my own speculation is that Joseph's own genes were used. There had to be some Y chromosome. It can't have been just from Mary. God could, of course, create half the genes himself. But that would seem to be a rejection of the geneologies, and to the whole idea that Jesus is a normal human according to the flesh. The incarnation is because the flesh is united to the Logos, not because the flesh isn't fully descended from humans.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

Matthew and Luke combine their narrative with geneologies involving Joseph.

Matthew's genealogy appears to have Joseph descending from Solomon, while
Luke's genealogy appears to have Joseph descending from Solomon's brother
Nathan.

Now, it's possible that one of the brothers is Joseph's paternal grandfather, and one
is his grandfather by means of adoption.

It's kind of weird for kin to adopt each other's children, but not unprecedented
seeing as how Jacob did that very thing in Gen 48:5-6.
_

 

[hedrick]

.



Matthew's genealogy appears to have Joseph descending from Solomon, while
Luke's genealogy appears to have Joseph descending from Solomon's brother
Nathan.

Now, it's possible that one of the brothers is Joseph's paternal grandfather, and one
is his grandfather by means of adoption.

It's kind of weird for kin to adopt each other's children, but not unprecedented
seeing as how Jacob did that very thing in Gen 48:5-6.
_

Or at least one was wrong, which is the more straightforward approach. My exegesis doesn’t depend upon whether they are completely accurate.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

My exegesis

It's not what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)
_