***Along with this, is there not some implication for the redmption of mankind, if Jesus is not Incarnate from this very same line of men, from Adam?
***
Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam. Matthew's goes only back to Abraham. In the later Matthew is showing a Jewish audience that Jesus is identified with Abraham and the promises of God to their father Abraham. Luke is writing to a universal audience and underscores Jesus' connection with the human race (the descendants of Adam).
Jesus is fully man and fully God. The Bible makes this plain. How he is so genetically involves speculation that I will leave to others. Its far easier to ask such questions than to answer them with any biblical authority.
Jesus is fully man and fully God. The Bible makes this plain. How he is so genetically involves speculation that I will leave to others. Its far easier to ask such questions than to answer them with any biblical authority. I appreciate the answer, and the fact that "Biblical authority" for the answers may be difficult to find.
My point was more to the fact that we assert that Jesus is Incarnate through the humanity that existed at that time, through some relative of the original parents.
The opposite side is saying that God simply created a new humanity ex nihilo and became incarnate through this newly created man.
Do you see a theological difference between the two scenarios?
SD