Who is the actual (FLESH!) Root of David. I say Adam started the line of David.

Although my opponent would like you to believe I dont know scripture, he is sadly mistaken. In attempt to attack me he has exposed himself. FIRST and foremost I never claimed nor stated indirectly, that I know more then Jesus. If I made any assumptions about knowing more than someone, clearly that someone is you. Now if you cant see the sarcasm in my questions, then it can be doubted that you yourself know the meaning of " context" Due to the fact that you TRIED to confuse, instead of educate me about scripture, Ill take the time and use scripture CORRECTLY, to educate you about " context" and your flagrant misuse of it. Who is the actual (flesh) "Root of David". I say Adam started the line of David. First and foremost i have to point out your misuse of the phrase "Root of David". The phrase itself, is never used in the bible as a reference to flesh. So to ask who is the acual (flesh) root of David is frivolous. But for the sake of argument, Ill use a verse you referenced to prove my point. All translations I use will come from the KJV. Rev. 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star" Clearly "root" points to spiritual, while "offspring" points to flesh. Even here Jesus himself states that he is the offspring of David. This begs the question of why Adam wasnt mentioned instead? We can find part of the answer in Romans 1:3"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" In this verse we have Paul testifying of both Jesus' spiritual and fleshly body. The spiritual is stated with "his Son" and the fleshly is stated in the obvious. A closer examination of this shows Jesus was fashioned after David's flesh, automatically disqualifying being fashioned afterAdam's flesh. But how is a reader to determine this to be true? Well lets examine what Adam was and how it relates to Jesus. What Adam was, was the "first" man. What flesh was this first man made of? Appearently, Adam's flesh was made of "the dust of the ground". Now lets compare that with Jesus. Jesus was the "second" man. 1Cor. 15:47 "The first man is of earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" What can be easily overlooked in this verse, is the fact that Jesus was the "new" type of man. So while the bible states that Adam's flesh was made of the ground, it also states that Jesus flesh was made out of David's. This makes perfect sense because flesh made out of one ingredient, should be different from a flesh made out of a different ingredient. Another way to look at it is to pretend we are baking cookies. Im baking chocolate chip, youre baking oatmeal. Although they are both indeed cookies they are not the same. The ingredients you began with will produce a different "type" because they are not the same ingredients i started with. To say that Adam started the Line of David is also frivolous. At the same time its a faulty representation of the truth. First and foremost God starts any and all bloodlines. He decides who your actions will be attributed to. Adam had other sons and daughters but their bloodlines had nothing to do with Seth's. Was this by Adam's choice or God's? God made the difference in Adam's offspring not Adam. Now lets address your reasoning as to why Adam is the start of the Line of David. Here again the phrase "Line of David" speaks of a spiritual line not a fleshly line. It can be stated that Adam is father of all flesh, because indeed we all die, but its not stated that way in the bible. The bible doesn't even state if Adam's flesh was in fact his own flesh. Yet it does infer that David's flesh was in fact David's. In itself, this is a minor point but it shows where our attention should be focused. We are all offspring of Adam or man to be more precise, but the believers amongst us are actually revealed to be God's offspring. For we are not the men born of the flesh, but we are of the men which were born of the spirit. Understand when God seperated A people for himself, he did just that. God made and set the standard for their distinction. One thing that made them distinct, was the fact, that while all men shared Adam's bloodline, they did not share their (jews) bloodline. This may seem unimportant but it serves to show that you must be of Abraham's first then Isaac's and finally Jacob's/Israel's bloodline to be qualified as God's chosen people. It also shows that Adam's bloodline played no role in being qualified as Hebrew/Israelite/Jew. So obviously the distinction is spiritual but it is reflected in its fleshly form as circumcision. The circumcision itself being a change in flesh(although God was focused on spirit). This change in flesh represented no small thing though itself was a small change. It was the physical representation of Gods covenant to his promised and separated people and at the same time it was a physical representation of change in spirit. When the "fleshly" descendants of God's chosen stumbled, God opened his door to the spiritual descendants. Romans2:28-29 "for he is not a jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God" The bible records that even if a man has Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's/Israel's bloodline, meaning "outwardly jew" he could in fact, not be "Jew". If even the "outwardly jew's" bloodline has no effect in being called "Jew" how then, could Adam's? This shows flesh has little, if any, meaning concerning bloodlines. It also serves to show my point. Which is, if the "outwardly jew" is in fact not a "jew" , then he must be reverted back to Adam's bloodline., which is different from Abraham's, Isaac's, Israel's, Judah's and thus David's bloodline. Therefore Adam could not be the start of David' s line.fleshly or spiritually. Since Adam's bloodline is 1) before David's and 2) at the same time, a different and seperate bloodline. This begs the question is all flesh the same? The bible records its not. 1Cor.15:39 "All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds." Did you notice the brackets in that verse? They may or may not be italicized in your bible translation. Whether or not if they are in your translation, and whether you realize it or not, they are there for a specific reason. Now since you assumed that I dont know scripture, Ill presuppose that you share the ignorance of those who dont know the reason why they are in brackets or italicized in some translations. Those words are not apart of the original manuscript but are put into it "only" for the ease of translation. Upon looking at this verse for face value it would originally state "All flesh not the same flesh:but one flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds." Being understood as stated above, the possibilities of different flesh among men is not excluded. So my question to you now is, can you point me to the verses in the bible which say All men share "Adam's flesh" instead of his "sinful nature"? That is if you can first PROVE what "Adam's flesh" is? And more importantly WHO made the distinction in "Adam's flesh" vs the distinction in David's flesh. I say GOD made that distintion and He started the Line of David. Ill even take it further and say if any man started the Line of David, then it was David himself. After all, it was David's ACTIONS and ATTRIBUTES which started the "line" anyway, NOT Adam's. Keeping the meaning of "line" in "context" would save YOU the embarrassment of assuming things, especially the things of which you clearly have know knowledge about.