The virgin birth story.

[fallingblood]

If you begin with God does not exist then your whole paper can only speak to the creation of myth.

I believe God exists. However, I don't believe it can be proven, and thus needs to be left out of a historical discussion. In a theological discussion, that is fine, but not a historical one.

In actual fact, and as unlikely as it would be, a virgin could undergo IVF and become pregnant while remaining a virgin. This concept is not as ridiculous as it seemed a century ago.

I agree that there is a possibility, even though it is highly improbable, for an ancient woman to become pregnant and remain a virgin. However, in the case of Mary, I don't see enough evidence of such to make a historical declaration. Even in modern times, such a claim would have to really be substantiated with a lot of documentation.


Without that documentation, such a miracle would have to be based on faith. And if someone believes it, that is fine.

 

[ejay286]

Here's a pretty good video.

[youtube]oli0DTmPmGU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU

 

[dmgdnooc]

I'm not slandering Irenaeus. I'm saying that he is wrong. The reason is simple for that, he is wrong, and I've shown why.

As for what manuscript should have preeminence, the one that is best attested to, agrees with other of our best manuscripts, possibly be the oldest, be in the correct language, etc. It isn't just one thing, it is multiple things.
So, because one chapter in Romans says that some of the individuals in the community, they must all be educated and sophisticated? That is ignorant. Especially since we know that the vast majority of people during that time were uneducated.

And without correspondence from that Roman congregation, who, as far as we can tell, never met Paul, and was set up by someone else, we can not know if they understood Paul or not. You are assuming something you can't prove because we have very little information about the congregation in Rome. As far as we know, a few of the members may have been educated, but we can't say anything about the entire congregation. You are again making baseless assumptions.
Can you show where Irenaeus quoted from it? I would be interested of such. And really, unless Irenaeus quoted the exact quote, then you have nothing.

As for the hypothesized Q, it may not even exist. It is just as logical that Luke used Matthew and Mark as a source. So we can see that some scholars over step the boundaries.
I stated that Paul may have met with the Apostles, but that he did not meet with the Gospel writers. To say that Paul met with the Apostles means absolutely nothing in the context of the Gospel writers.
I never said Paul was in isolation of the Apostles. I said that as far as we know, Paul was in isolation of the Gospel writers, with the possible exception of Luke. You need to get the facts straight.
Paul says that Jesus became the son of God because of the power of the resurrection. Peter, being a Jew, would have understood the term son of God in the Jewish sense of the world. Which did not mean a physical son of God. It is with the resurrection that Jesus really takes on a dual nature.
Paul uses it in conjunction with the resurrection. That is what the verse says, that Jesus became the son of God with the resurrection. The NT is not unanimous on this point though. Mark says something very different. John says something very different.
I'm not dismissing anything. I explain why the evidence you present is not credible. The clear and obvious evidence is only clear to Christians who have the same belief as you.
Again, I'm not looking through it with Rabbinical lenses. I'm putting them back in a historical context, first century Judaism. For some reason, many Christians have a problem with this.

I've explained why Paul didn't say what you are claiming. I showed it in the verses. And what makes me thing the NT writers, who were Jews in the first century for the most part, would have meant what Jews in the first century usually meant? Because they were Jews in the first century. I'm placing them in their historical context.
They only head in the same direction if you want them to. The OT is only used once to support the idea of a virgin birth, and in that case, Matthew manipulates Isaiah to say something that it doesn't.

There was no requirement for a virgin birth. There is no mention of it in regards to the Messiah. And really, in the NT, only Matthew claims that the OT predicted it. Luke never says such. And Matthew and Luke are the only ones who even mention a virgin birth. Your argument here is not based on fact.
Paul clearly states that Jesus was born according to the flesh, and that Jesus became the son of God through the resurrection.

So yes, to get to the point in which you are making, you must read the Gospel into Paul. Because Paul, as I've shown, says nothing what you are saying. He never suggests a supernatural birth, a virgin birth, or anything but a regular birth and conception.
The first writers we have who speak of Jesus, never mention a virgin birth. Mark never states such, and Paul never states such. When we get to the idea of the virgin birth, Matthew and Luke agree on basically nothing. I see little reason then to assume that it was an original idea since the earliest sources don't mention it.

This is a survey of your reasons for saying that Irenaeus is wrong.
'There is no evidence that Irenaeus had a copy of the Gospel that said Mary was the daughter of Heli'
'He could have been using a very flawed manuscript'
'Irenaeus either read it wrong, or manipulated it to fit his own idea'
'Irenaeus dealt in apologetics .... his information was not based on facts .... modern Christians don't agree with him'
'Irenaeus was wrong about Luke's genealogy .... he is known to have twisted the facts to support his case.'
　
And then you let it slip that you haven't even checked the reference to Irenaeus that I gave you!
Your mind was made up about his words before you ever read them; and your concrete belief in his error is rooted in your personal opinion of the man.
　
So, you say the Roman church could not have understood that Paul was referencing to the duality of Jesus in Romans 1.3+4 because -
'the people Paul was preaching to had just recently heard about the message of Jesus... not all of them would have been well-versed in scripture, or even educated ,,,, most of them were uneducated'
I refered you to chapter 16 which shows that there were a great many educated and long-time believers in that church.
They had all the smarts and grounding in the Gospel and the scriptures necessary to understand what Paul was saying and to communicate that to the whole church.
If I am assuming that Paul's letter could be understood and would be communicated to the whole church, fair enough - a safe assumption imo.
Your assumption is that Paul's letter could not be understood, and even if a few could understand they would not communicate their understanding - and that is a baseless assumption imo.
　
Irenaeus says - ' Mary was of the lineage of David ... Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains 72 generations, connecting the end with the beginning ... wherefore also Luke commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam'
The genealogy in Irenaeus' Luke is Jesus' through Mary via David to Adam.
The line of his descent through the flesh.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
This and its preceding page are the source of the argument.
　
Paul having met with the Apostles (including John) has bearing, for he surely spoke with them at length about their mutual saviour.
My problem here is your apparent isolation of Paul from the generality of Christianity and treating his message as being other than approved by the Apostles.
And you should remember that I accept the internal evidences that John wrote John and that Luke journeyed with Paul.
Mark and Matthew are not settled in my mind though.
　
And to get the facts straight you said that 'Paul was in isolation of the Gospel writers' as a response to my saying that 'there is no reason to assume that Paul was unaware of Jesus' parentage as described by the Gospels'.
Your assumption is that the Apostles were unaware of the account because the Gospel writers fabricated it at a later date.

 

[dmgdnooc]

cont.
Paul does not say that 'Jesus became the son of God because of the power of the resurrection' he says that he was 'declared to be' or proven to be or determined to be the son of God by the resurrection.
Jesus was born Emmanuel, God with us; John recognised it and said 'I have need to be baptized of thee'; Jesus was the son of God and the son of man who had the power to forgive sins.
The word made flesh, Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, while in the womb he was 'that holy thing' etc.
His dual nature was a product of his unique conception.
　
I do not think that Peter's exclamation the Jesus was 'the Messiah, the son of the living God' was made in the fullness of understanding.
That, as for Paul, remained a matter for the resurrection to declare.
Once declared, however, the fullness of the understanding began to work on the Apostles; it is significant to the point that the duality of Jesus' nature, while in the days of his flesh, is a feature of the NT in its entirety, demonstrating its early acceptance.
Which is not to say that it was universally accepted, hence it is also significant that the matter receives its fullest treatment in John (both the Gospel and the letters) and we see, in Irenaeus, that there was still a minority controversy raging in the late 2nd century.
In fact, even today, the discussion still continues.
　
What different thing do you suppose Mark and John to be saying about this?
My understanding is that the 'difference' is only one of forcefullness, not substance.
　
Over and over again I have given evidence and reasonings, but all I have had in return are absolute negatives, you don't recognise any evidence or reasonings that do not accord with your view.
You make a bald statement along the lines that descent cannot be through a female and I offer instances where descent is counted through the female, you don't acknowledge the exceptions merely repeat your absolute negative.
I offer my understanding of Romans 1 (which accords with long held Christian understanding) and offer that the Roman church would have understood it similarly; you counter that they wouldn't have had the wit to understand what Paul was saying.
I show that the Roman church had many notables, educated and sophisticated members and you still hold to your assertion.
And cobble together a translation from multiple sources to 'prove' your point.
C'mon why not just acknowledge that the Romans, most probably, shared that long and widely held understanding of the verses.
Look, I'm not out to convert you.
All I am doing, maybe not well, is to lay before you arguments that have bearing on the question.
　
My problem with your approach is that the historical context of 1st century Judaism is a conversation that does not recognise that Christianity is not 1st century Judaism.
There are things, at the very roots of Christianity, that forced a departure from 1st century Judaism from the very first.
Christians were subject to persecution from 1st century Judaism, even when its only adherents were 1st century Jews, that should tell you something, ring bells, whatever.
Because the ideas that formed Christianity are anathema to 1st century Judaism and trying to understand Christianity as not being radically contrary to Judaism is doomed to failure.
　
Irenaeus puts up a pretty good argument from the OT for the virgin birth.
That with the indicators I gave should make you stop and think.
Matthew does not manipulate Isaiah to make it say something that it doesn't.
His reading is acceptable, both 'parthenos' from the LXX and 'almah' from the Hebrew carry the force of the idea of 'virginity'.
Matthew seems, above the others, to be concerned with prophetic fulfillment; it is not a matter that Matthew is wrong because Luke does not reproduce his argument.
　
Jesus was born the son of God; it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto Himself.
Paul says, in Colossians 1.19+20, that in the days of his flesh all fulness dwelt in Jesus because that was pleasing to his Father.
In Philippians 2.6+7 Jesus, although having a divine nature 'made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men'
Jesus did not become the son of God through the resurrection; Paul says that he was the son of God, in whom all fulness dwelt, who had the form of God but was also made in the likeness of men.
In Galatians 4.4 God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law.
Paul in no way implies a regular birth and conception.
It is your lack of sensitivity that cannot see that God's uniquely generated son would be born of a virgin.
　
Paul and Mark make no mention of the virgin birth, the next writers (chronologically) both do.
All make clear references to the unique status of Jesus as God's son and the duality of natures that were housed in his flesh.
Now I suppose that the teaching was verbal, at least no written record survives expounding it, because the duality of Jesus' nature requires a conception by the direct agency of God (because only spirit could beget the spirit aspect of that nature) which suggests a virgin birth.
I don't doubt that the teaching was resisted, which would be a prompt to Matthew and Luke to include it in their works.
John had, therfore, no need to reiterate the matter but he, most forcefully of all, teaches the duality of Jesus' nature; and that only spirit can generate spirit, that flesh always produces flesh.
　
To my thinking the virgin birth and the duality of Jesus' nature are intertwined 1st level reasonings whose only required premise, beyond the OT, is that Jesus is 'the Messiah, the Son of the living God'.

 

[fallingblood]

This is a survey of your reasons for saying that Irenaeus is wrong.
'There is no evidence that Irenaeus had a copy of the Gospel that said Mary was the daughter of Heli'
'He could have been using a very flawed manuscript'
'Irenaeus either read it wrong, or manipulated it to fit his own idea'
'Irenaeus dealt in apologetics .... his information was not based on facts .... modern Christians don't agree with him'
'Irenaeus was wrong about Luke's genealogy .... he is known to have twisted the facts to support his case.'

So instead of trying to argue anything, you want to dismiss me out right. Great. Especially since you never proved that Irenaeus was using a better manuscript that said that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary.
　

And then you let it slip that you haven't even checked the reference to Irenaeus that I gave you!
Your mind was made up about his words before you ever read them; and your concrete belief in his error is rooted in your personal opinion of the man.

I never said I didn't check the reference. I asked for it, and then I read it, and saw that nothing you were saying was actually present in the text. So instead of trying to dismiss me, address the information.
　

So, you say the Roman church could not have understood that Paul was referencing to the duality of Jesus in Romans 1.3+4 because -
'the people Paul was preaching to had just recently heard about the message of Jesus... not all of them would have been well-versed in scripture, or even educated ,,,, most of them were uneducated'
I refered you to chapter 16 which shows that there were a great many educated and long-time believers in that church.
They had all the smarts and grounding in the Gospel and the scriptures necessary to understand what Paul was saying and to communicate that to the whole church.
If I am assuming that Paul's letter could be understood and would be communicated to the whole church, fair enough - a safe assumption imo.
Your assumption is that Paul's letter could not be understood, and even if a few could understand they would not communicate their understanding - and that is a baseless assumption imo.

I already addressed chapter 16. It shows only a very small minority of the church. You can't make a minority into the majority to fit your idea. Also, my statements are based on what we can know.

More so, Romans 1:3-4 doesn't even state what you say it does, so it is highly unlikely any of them would have understood what you're saying. So it isn't a safe assumption.

We know that the vast majority of people were uneducated. From the evidence, we know that a vast majority of the first Christians were uneducated. So it is not a safe assumption to assume that the congregation in Rome was well educated.
　

Irenaeus says - ' Mary was of the lineage of David ... Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains 72 generations, connecting the end with the beginning ... wherefore also Luke commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam'
The genealogy in Irenaeus' Luke is Jesus' through Mary via David to Adam.
The line of his descent through the flesh.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
This and its preceding page are the source of the argument.

　No it doesn't. If it does, quote it directly from the source you've given. Because one, it never states that Mary was of the lineage of David. That sentence does not appear. I've read the link you've provided, and what you're saying simply does not appear.

So again, as with the scholarly consensus, I have to assume that the first time that the idea that the genealogy in Luke was attributed to Mary was some 400 years after Irenaues, and was stated by John of Damascus. Irenaeus says nothing of the such.

Paul having met with the Apostles (including John) has bearing, for he surely spoke with them at length about their mutual saviour.
My problem here is your apparent isolation of Paul from the generality of Christianity and treating his message as being other than approved by the Apostles.
And you should remember that I accept the internal evidences that John wrote John and that Luke journeyed with Paul.
Mark and Matthew are not settled in my mind though.

I never said that Paul was isolated from Christianity, or that his message wasn't approved by the apostles. I freely accept that James, Peter, and John, the pillars of the Jerusalem church, approved of Paul.

Now, if you accept Luke wrote Luke (which there is no evidence, and if you remember though, I accept that there may be a possibility that the author did meet Paul), you need to prove it, or simply state it is a matter of faith.

As for John, I've argued why the internal evidence makes no such case. I've argued against it, and you've never shown why we should accept it except that you think the evidence works. Which is a statement of faith.
　

And to get the facts straight you said that 'Paul was in isolation of the Gospel writers' as a response to my saying that 'there is no reason to assume that Paul was unaware of Jesus' parentage as described by the Gospels'.
Your assumption is that the Apostles were unaware of the account because the Gospel writers fabricated it at a later date.

There is a good reason to assume that the Apostles were unaware of the virgin birth as described in Matthew and Luke. We don't see it suggested anywhere, until Matthew and Luke. There is no evidence that it goes before that. Paul never mentions it, Mark never mentions it.

 

[fallingblood]

cont.
Paul does not say that 'Jesus became the son of God because of the power of the resurrection' he says that he was 'declared to be' or proven to be or determined to be the son of God by the resurrection.
Jesus was born Emmanuel, God with us; John recognised it and said 'I have need to be baptized of thee'; Jesus was the son of God and the son of man who had the power to forgive sins.
The word made flesh, Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, while in the womb he was 'that holy thing' etc.
His dual nature was a product of his unique conception.

So I guess my Bibles simply are not good enough. I mean, I've quoted from the Bible, and shown the proof, and stated other versions that agree with it. But I guess that isn't good enough.

Your belief here is based on faith. The idea that Jesus is Emmanuel rests on the assumption that Isaiah's prophecy about the so called virgin, actually had something to do with Jesus. Which it clearly doesn't. As it never states anything about a virgin, and was long fulfilled by the time of Jesus. So no, there is no reason to believe Jesus was born Emmanuel.

And John didn't recognize it. That was added later in order to give a logical reason why Jesus would have to be baptized. The reason why we know that John didn't recognize it is because the Gospels can't even agree on what happened. All that they agree with is that Jesus was baptized by John.

　
My problem with your approach is that the historical context of 1st century Judaism is a conversation that does not recognise that Christianity is not 1st century Judaism.
There are things, at the very roots of Christianity, that forced a departure from 1st century Judaism from the very first.
Christians were subject to persecution from 1st century Judaism, even when its only adherents were 1st century Jews, that should tell you something, ring bells, whatever.
Because the ideas that formed Christianity are anathema to 1st century Judaism and trying to understand Christianity as not being radically contrary to Judaism is doomed to failure.

Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. It remained a sect of Judaism for quite some time. Christians may have been persecuted on a small level (it couldn't have been at a great level as we see the Jerusalem church, a continuation of the Jesus movement, and actually the head of it, residing in Jerusalem. And in fact, they were well respected as we can see from Josephus), but the primary reason was to keep peace. And really, it wasn't widespread.

And no, the ideas that formed Christianity fit within Judaism. That's why Jesus could be a Jew, why James, the brother of Jesus, and the leader of the Jerusalem church, was a well-respected Jew. Why Paul was a Jew. The two existed just fine.

It wasn't until later, after the prophecies of Jesus failed, and failed, and failed. And when the the Kingdom of God never came, and Jesus never returned, that the Christian idea had to change.
　

Irenaeus puts up a pretty good argument from the OT for the virgin birth.
That with the indicators I gave should make you stop and think.
Matthew does not manipulate Isaiah to make it say something that it doesn't.
His reading is acceptable, both 'parthenos' from the LXX and 'almah' from the Hebrew carry the force of the idea of 'virginity'.
Matthew seems, above the others, to be concerned with prophetic fulfillment; it is not a matter that Matthew is wrong because Luke does not reproduce his argument.

Matthew is wrong as almah, in Hebrew, only can mean virgin if we are told that. Almah means young woman. It does not imply virgin. It would if there was something that qualified that idea. But there isn't. It is clear that the Hebrew says that it was a young woman.

More so, if you read the verse in context, we know that it has nothing to do with the Messiah. That the prophecy was already fulfilled. So no, Matthew manipulates the verse.

As for Irenaeus, if he does try to make an argument about a virgin birth based out of the OT, then he manipulated the verses. Because there is no evidence in the OT that the messiah would be born of a virgin. That wasn't even how the OT showcased a miraculous birth.
　
　
　
As you can see, I'm not dealing with a lot of your argument as some of it boils down to preaching, other parts are simply dismissing what I've wrote, other parts are just repeating yourself over and over again, etc. I see no point if you will just dismiss what I say, and repeat what you've already posted over and over again.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I brought up Matthew in order to show that the Gospel writers had no problem searching the OT to manipulate verses in order to show that Jesus was the Messiah. It was an example. And I wasn't using it to prove anything about Psalms 2 except that it was not uncommon for the NT writers to search the OT. And I referred to that verse simply because it deals with the virgin birth.

As for Psalms 2, I can read it myself. It is David saying that he is the begotten son of God. And even if we take your idea, it still doesn't relate to Jesus as Jesus is not, and can not be the Jewish Messiah.

Also, if you read the verse, it assumes that the person who is being mentioned, who is being called the son of God, is the King of Israel, and Israel is an actual nation at that time. That is the context of the verse. More so, it wasn't until Medieval times that Jewish began really refiguring the idea.

So even if I am wrong, it doesn't make you right. Especially since Jesus was never the King of Israel, as the Psalms is talking about.
You have no idea what I believe. I don't think Christianity is an offshoot of Rabbinical Judaism. I think Christianity, as the evidence shows, that Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism, and eventually split. By the time Rabbinical Judaism emerged, Christianity, for the most part, had already separated.

As for the dual nature of Jesus, one would have to show that he is divine. That can't be done. That is not something that history can show. And really, we see many other individuals who also had a dual nature, such as Augustus Caesar.

And I'm not missing the idea that arose concerning Jesus having a dual nature. But the first time we see that idea is with Paul, who says that it occurs with the resurrection. Not any time sooner. As for the dual nature of the Messianship, that is a later creation of Christianity. We can look at first century Judaism and see what the Messiah entailed. Jesus simply didn't fit the bill, primarily because he did not fulfill messianic expectations, and instead, died.
I demand that the Apostles, being Jews, can not be transformed into Christians. The Jesus movement (the foundation of Christianity) remained a Jewish movement, and the Apostles, from what we can know, remained Jewish. To take them out of this context would be dishonest.

It should be known that there were much more than the Priests and the Rabbis during that time. When speaking of the two, one has to put them in their first century context, and not later Rabbinical Judaism, which were quite different. One clear difference is that there was no Temple for the priests during the time of Rabbinical Judaism.
Again, I explained why Irenaeus was wrong. Complaining about it won't go anywhere.

And really, it is getting sickening your dismissing of me. Claiming that I'm slandering everything and what not is not an effective way to debate. I showed why Irenaeus was wrong. And I'd still like to see where Irenaeus mentions the genealogy of Luke.
The translation I was using what the NIV. The NRSV basically follows as well. The parenthesis I added in order to add the notes. Don't try to dismiss me. Address the issue.

Just to note, the New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, King James Bible, American King James Bible, and many more agree with the basis that I quoted. They all put the evidence of Jesus being the son of God because of the resurrection. Maybe instead of trying to claim that I'm being dishonest now, you can address the statement.
You are severely limiting God. And as Paul shows, Jesus' dual nature really came after he was resurrected.

Mark never mentions a virgin birth, and we can't assume he knew of such. Yet, he still suggests a dual nature, and thus shows that you are wrong. John is even better. He gives Jesus a divine nature by saying that he always was. That he was the word of God made in flesh. There is no virgin birth, there is something very different.

Paul also never mentions a virgin birth. He says that Jesus is the son of God because of the resurrection, as I've shown with the quote of the verse in question.

There is no reason for a virgin birth, and we can not read it into texts that never state it.
Duality and the virgin birth do not go hand in hand. That is severely limiting God. In the Gospels, we have the story of the transformation of Jesus when he goes up to the mountain. We have the story of Jesus being baptized, which showed some type of transformation. Either one could be where Jesus got his dual nature.

And sense various authors did not mention a virgin birth, we can not assume they knew about it.

Again, I would like to see the quote from Irenaeus about the genealogy from Luke. As far as I've been able to get it, the idea that the Lukan genealogy came through Mary did not originate until some 400 years after Irenaeus.

There is nothing wrong with searching the OT and finding verses that illuminate Jesus' Messiahship.
The problem that I have is with the term manipulate, because the text was not fixed at that time, in fact from the Dead Sea Scrolls it is seen to be quite fluid.
So there can be no validity in criticising Matthew for not adhering to the Masoretic text at a time when there was no Masoretic text, and the texts that were available were clearly varied.
　
And your reading of Psalm 2 is at odds with the majority view of both Judaism and Christianity.
Maybe the next time you read it put the text into the context of David.
Though a few kings were subject to David, the kings of the earth, in their generality, were not so bound.
He never received the uttermost parts of the earth as his possession, nor the heathen for his inheritance.
Nor did those kings of the earth receive instruction from him that caused them to serve Yahweh with fear, or to rejoice with trembling.
That is why both Judaism and Christianity ascribe the subject of the Psalm to be the 'son of David', the Messiah.
　
Long before Medieval times, since at least the time of the Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish view of Psalm 2 has remained constant, it is prophetically of the Messiah.
Christians hold the view that Psalm 2 is to be fulfilled at the 2nd advent, when Israel will be restored and Christ is there enthroned.
　
Christianity was, and remains, a Jewish sect.
It split from authorised Judaism almost immediately, its founder and adherents cast out and persecuted for their beliefs and the things that they taught.
　
Paul taught that Jesus' nature, in the days of his flesh, was both human and divine, but that with the death of his body he became wholly divine.
Though Paul is still comfortable calling Jesus a man after the resurrection he is clearly no longer subject to the temptations of the flesh.
And the Roman concept of divi filius can only be applied to Christian thinking on Jesus in error.
Jesus fulfilled Christianity's messianic expectations by conquering death.
And it is the assurance given by his conquering of death from which flows the assurance that the remainder of the Messianic mission will be completed.

 

[dmgdnooc]

cont.
The Apostles remained Jews, in a real sense all Christians are Jews in Paul's thinking, but they held to ideas and beliefs that ensured that they would be cast out and persecuted by Judaism.
Your suggestion requires that Peter, and all Jewish Christians, did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, because they could not do so and remain Jews.
But they expected his immanent return to restore the kingdom to Israel.
　
All the Gospels have a Gentile slant to them, even Matthew; Mark, the earliest Gospel, has, perhaps, the firmest bias towards Gentiles.
Christianity did not remain Jewish for long, Jewish enmity ensured that.
Because the transformation of thinking ignited by the resurrection required a negative, or contrary, reaction from the Jewish authorities.
So, from the first, threats and gags, and beatings and stonings came down upon the Christian community in an effort to turn that transformed thinking back inside limits that the Jewish authorities found comfortable.
But they did not succeed.
To cement Christianity into a continuing Jewish context, supposing that the transformed thinking of the Apostolic church was dependent upon, or beholden to, the continuing Jewish authority is what I find dishonest.
The fundamental tenets of Christianity are so at odds with established Judaism, even the Judaism of the 1st century, that friction and drawn lines became evident soon after Pentecost, that is, as soon as the Apostles came out of hiding after the crucifiction.
And although Chritian authority resided in Jerusalem, with the Apostles, its transformational engine was firmly fixed in the diaspora and soon became focussed on the Gentiles.
　
Yes, you explained why Irenaeus was wrong, and then you revealed that you had not read the page I referenced you to.
I'm not complaining, I merely surveyed your responses and reproduced them so it could be seen that you had dismissed contrary facts, sight unseen, on the basis of a personal prejudice.
Oh, and debate is not my purpose; from my pov I am laying before you a set of arguments for the pro case.
Whether or not you accept them is of minimal concern to me, but in the interests of a balanced survey your paper should make mention of both sides of the question.
But it should be noted that because I am not dismissing you the words are being multiplied.
If I do not blindly accept the entirety of your assertions, and you have offered very little by way of reasoning, it should not be seen as an indication that I am dismissing you.
　
How many times must I give the reference to Irenaeus?
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Here it is again.
　
OK, this is what you said.
'And if we look at the sentence, it doesn't say what you are saying. Lets look at the verse, Romans 1: 3-4:
regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life (or according to the flesh) was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power (or was declared with power to be the Son of God) by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.


It says nothing about being born according to the spirit of holiness. Instead, it says that he was declared to be the Son of God because of his resurrection from the dead.
So yes, you are reading more into it then there really is. Because it does not state what you are saying. Instead, it suggests that Jesus was born of purely physical means, with nothing supernatural. And it definitely doesn't say that Jesus was born of a virgin.'


To which I replied.
'A prophet cannot be said to be born according to the spirit of holiness.
What is of the flesh is flesh is the scriptural rule.
Whose translation are you quoting here for Romans 1.4?
It looks like one you have cobbled together by yourself, rearranging the grammatical structure to confuse the issue and prove the point you want it to.
Your attempts at exegesis produce a result that is at odds with the rest of scripture and even with Paul's internal arguments in Romans.
It may be that you are simply unable to read with comprehension, but I think you are pushing a barrow laden with the agenda of a late virgin birth.'
　
I definitely did not dismiss you, there is a sparky exchange, but it is from both sides.
And you did cobble the translation, adding your own words to it, although you preface the translation with 'let's look at the verse'.
So, OK, please accept my apologies for my part in the sparkiness.
　
But I've just checked the KJS, KJV, ASV, DBY, DOU, WBS, YLT, BBE, WEB and all agree with the syntax as I have presented it.
Further Gill and JFB agree with the sense of duality of nature that I have imparted to the verses (that the existing sonship, the existing dual nature, was declared or proven by the resurrection, not inaugurated by it).
The NLT has 'shown', ESV has 'declared', NASB has 'declared', KJV has 'declared', AKJV has 'declared'; all agree with the sense of my reading; of declaring, or confirming or showing, an existing sonship; not of inaugurating a sonship that had theretofore not existed.
　
The evidence of the sonship is the resurrection, however you are saying above that the resurrection inaugurated, began, generated the divine nature in Christ, generated the unique sonship; that Jesus did not have a divine nature in the days of his flesh.
Because he 'was born of purely physical means'.
And 'was appointed the Son of God in power .... by his resurrection from the dead'.
This is quite at odds with the vast majority of translations and with over 1800 years of Christian understanding.
　
Paul does not show that 'Jesus' dual nature came after he was resurrected'.
After his resurrection the enmity had been destroyed, there were no longer 2 warring natures in his flesh, he then had a single divine nature.
　
Yes, Mark suggests a dual nature in Jesus in the days of his flesh.
It appears to have escaped you that the divine aspect of Jesus' nature could only be generated by God being active in his begetal.
Because only spirit begets spirit.
The divine aspect of Jesus' nature is most prominently portrayed in John, but John leaves us in no doubt that Jesus also has a human nature; he is also flesh.
And John is the one who tells us most clearly that only spirit can beget spirit and flesh beget flesh.
So to have divine and human natures aspected in one body requires divne and human agencies in the conception.
　
It seems that it does not matter whether or not the text states it, or what number of texts state it, many will refuse to accept the virgin birth either way.
Nevertheless, duality of nature and a virgin birth are intertwined ideas, they can not be separated; and both flow together from the Christian idea of Jesus, the Son of God.
　
Jesus' baptism by John was not transformational it was a confirmation of his purpose to do all that was needful.
John understood that he should be baptised by Jesus, not the other way around.
　
If 2 NT writers mention the fact, it can be safely assumed that the others expect a reader to be able to remember and reason on it.
It is 1st principles reasoning and they didn't devote papyrus and ink repeating the simplest things that 2 Gospels had clearly covered and so many in the church (of that day) could explain.
And I know that these are simple things because I can understand them.
　
see my post #183 for Irenaeus.

 

[fallingblood]

There is no reason continue with this discussion. You have faith in what you believe, and you will not accept anything else. That is fine. However, I see no reason to continue as you refuse to acknowledge that I'm providing. Instead, you dismiss things that I say, ignore others, and just continue to repeat yourself over and over again. This discussion is certainly going no where, so I see it best to just withdraw.

 

[outhouse]

Here's a pretty good video.

[youtube]oli0DTmPmGU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU

good one

shows the contradicting fables quite well

 

[dmgdnooc]

I know my thinking, in your mind, is influenced by Rabbinical Judaism. You've said that before, yet, you haven't shown how that is true. My thinking is influenced by my knowledge of first century Judaism, which is different from Rabbinical Judaism.

Now, insulting my reading of the NT isn't very called for. My reading of the NT differs from yours, it doesn't make it cursory. I understand what the NT is stating. However, I don't take the NT as an isolated source. I don't think that is logical to do.
Christ being risen doesn't answer anything, as historically, it can not be proven. More so, Christ did not to be resurrected in order to effect the NT in the way he did. The story could have been made up, or the Apostles could have honestly believed that Jesus was resurrected, but were in fact mistaken.

There are various answers that can be placed here.
I'm not denying that Jesus is called unique in John. However, unique and begotten are not the same. John could be calling Jesus unique as John describes Jesus as the Word of God, that is now in the flesh. That would be quite unique.

It also doesn't translate to one and only, as you have already admitted that Adam was also the son of God.
Of course Paul is going to say that. That doesn't make it true. You believe it upon faith. Paul believed it upon faith. And it is faith based as there is no evidence that Adam even existed. In fact, most scholars, both Jewish and Christian, agree that up to chapter 12 in Genesis, the work was not a historical record, but pseudo-history.

Also, the idea of Adam, the creation myth, and so on, is based on faith, not fact. So referring to Adam adds very little to your case.
I said Irenaues was wrong. And really, we have no idea what manuscript he was reading from, or what it said, because he doesn't mention that. He never says, here in Luke, it says the genealogy is through Mary. There is no mention of that.

And we don't have any textual evidence to suggest that there was a change in the text from attributing the genealogy from Mary to Joseph. There simply is no evidence for that.

Also, the MO of textual criticism does not give more authority to earlier manuscripts that contain fewer words. Both Bruce Metzger, and Bart Ehrman state otherwise, and they are authorities on the subject. It's more complicated than that. So it doesn't support your idea.

And I haven't departed from the normal tenets of sound scholarship, I simply am aware of what it says. I have studied sound scholarship, and I do follow it.
Can you pinpoint the reference in Irenaeus? Because I read through the link you posted, and I saw no such thing. As it stands, I will continue to agree with what scholarship states and attribute the idea of the genealogy in Luke going through Mary to John of Damascus, who was living some 400 years after Irenaeus.

We see many contradictions in the Bible. That doesn't mean that there is an elaborate explanation. It probably means exactly as it appears, that there is a contradiction. There really is no problem with that. It definitely isn't the only contradiction in the Gospel stories.

Beyond a doubt, we can rest assure that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph. That is what we would expect. That is the only way that Jesus could be logically connected to David, and that is what our manuscripts say. There is no reason to assume anything else.

Also, I'm not using many absolute statement. Just as much as you are.
The historical research is easy. Kingship was traced through the father. That is what we see throughout the OT as well as other ancient records. There is no reason to assume they would go through the mother, as that was simply not attested to. It would have shown absolutely nothing.

That is not to mention that our best manuscripts also state that the genealogy in Luke is of Joseph.

I think that your thinking is influenced by Rabbinical Judaism because you repeat its arguments, and virtually unfiltered.
It is, as I said, as though you had been opened to the arguments via just about any other source than the NT.
You are aware of the contrary arguments but not the pros.
When the Rabbis say that descent cannot come through a female you accept it and give no wieght to the exceptions recorded in scripture.
If the Rabbis say that there cannot be a dual Messiahship then that is your view without regard to what the Apostles taught.
So too for Jesus' sonship, duality of nature and virgin birth.
All these reasons I have given before.
Are they not reasons?
　
I do not mean to insult your reading of the NT, I merely point out that there are major themes in the NT that you appear to be only vaguely acquainted with.
But I agree that the NT cannot be read in isolation, without regard to its OT or historical contexts.
However my pov is that if the NT is to be understood, the teachings that it endorses and espouses, it must be allowed to present the matters of its concern in its own way.
　
Christ risen cannot be proven historically, but to understand what was being taught one must accept the matter as being a fact that all the Apostles believed.
It answered all for them.
It is Paul's governing theme, it is what Peter is first reported as preaching, it is a prominent feature of every book and the engine that drove Christianity from the first.
Honest, practical, down to earth, careful, serious men preached, at risk of their own lives, that they were witnesses to the resurrection; they were in no doubt, they did not waver, but persevered with the belief through threats, beatings, stonings, ostracism and more.
Maybe you could elaborate on how they were mistaken; and why it is not essential to the NT, when it is clearly such a prominent feature and the ground from which so much is reasoned.
　
'unique' and 'begotten' are not the same thing.
John uses a compound 'monogenes' to convey the idea that is often translated as 'only begotten'; 'uniquely born' or 'one of a kind' are not outside the range of meanings.
'only' - 'mono', 'begotten' - 'genes'. Only begotten may not be an exact translation but it seems a pretty fair translation of the Greek.
And most English translations make that sense of John's compound word.
In fact John is saying that there is a relationship between Jesus being the 'word made flesh' and Jesus' monogenes-ness.
Despite the existence of Ishmael the OT usage of the idea of 'only son' allows for Isaac to be so termed.
The idea of an 'only' or 'true' son being the second son is quite scriptural.
But John is referring to the uniquesness of Jesus, his 'mono-ness', as you have agreed.
　
What I believe and whether or not Adam existed are immaterial to the point.
The discussion is of what Paul believed and the fact that he says that Adam was the 'figure of him that was to come' illustrates what he, himself, believed and taught about the nature of Christ.
And the 'uniqueness' of his sonship.
　
We know that Irenaeus was reading from a manuscript that he calls 'Luke'.
We know that when speaking of Jesus' descent through the flesh, after having shown that Matthew's genealogy is not of Jesus, he refers to this 'Luke' manuscript and the fact that it goes from Jesus to Adam via David.
Earlier he had observed that Mary was of the pedigree of David.
This is evidence; and enough, for me, to reason that Luke's genealogy is Jesus' from Mary, through whom he inherited his human nature, to Adam via David.
　
Perhaps my understanding of the general rule of textual criticism is faulty, it is garnered only from what I have read about the subject and not from personal knowledge or experience.
And I, in no way, implied that my 'general rule' is in any way an absolute to be observed in all cases.
The notes on external and internal evidences from this wiki support the things I have said about older manuscripts with fewer words that do not generate contradictions generally being ascribed a greater authority.
Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
My post #183 quotes from Irenaeus.
If you didn't read the words I quoted when you read Irenaeus I will restate them here.
'Irenaeus says - ' Mary was of the lineage of David ... Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains 72 generations, connecting the end with the beginning ... wherefore also Luke commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam''
Now if Jesus was God's unique son so that Joseph was not Jesus' father, then through whom could 'the generation of our Lord back to Adam' be accounted if not through Mary?
　
I have no assurance that Luke's genealogy is of Joseph.
And Irenaeus proves that at least one 2nd century manuscript generated no contradiction.
　
Logically, Joseph's claim to the kingship was null and void by reason of Jeconiah.
And logically, descent, and the rights therefrom, passes through the female when there are no male heirs.
That is what the scriptures say.
　
You keep asserting that kingship was passed exclusively, without exception, through the father's line.
Yet the example of the 'daughters of Zelophehad' shows that the inheritance of rights in Israel could be counted through a daughter if there were no male heirs to assert a claim.
There is also to be considered that the eldest son did not always inherit the kingship (Solomon), it could pass to the dead king's brother and not his son (Zedekiah) and a higher power (Egypt or Babylon) could appoint a Davidic king without regard to the niceties of inheritance.
My point being that the right of inheritance was not as fixed as you are portraying it.
It was always subject to circumstance, a father's will and the intervention of a higher power.
So there are reasons that lend significance to a descent from David through Mary.

 

[dmgdnooc]

continued from above:

A link between David and Mary means nothing. It didn't prove anything, and among first century Jews, it would be scoffed at. The simple reason is that is now how things were done. As for going through Joseph, it worked. As Luke states, Joseph was thought to be the father of Jesus. People thought Joseph was the father, Joseph was the legal father, and his genealogy would have been just fine. An adoptive child could still claim that adoptive fathers genealogy.

It is true that God doesn't have to conform to the tradition Jewish idea; however, that means nothing here. Because it is traditional Jewish idea that everyone would have judged Jesus by. So to trace a genealogy through Mary would have been illogical, and showed absolutely nothing.

As for who the writers of the Gospels were writing for, means absolutely nothing. Jesus was a Jew. And in fact, by the time of Paul, Christianity was still a Jewish sect. There was very little persecuting of Christians, and it was hardly widespread. Which is why the Jerusalem church could exist in Jerusalem. That is why the head of the Christian religion, could reside in Jerusalem.

And even in pagan circles, descent went through the fathers line. That is how kingly descent simply went.

Also, there is evidence that even some of the Gospel writers were Jews, who's mission was under Judaism. We see a Jewish congregation until at least the 4th century.

Finally, the Gospel writers were claiming that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Regardless of their audience, it would have been illogical to try to prove Jesus of kingly descent from David through a woman. The Gentiles would have laughed it off as well, and the Jews would certainly have attacked such. But we never see such an attack.
The crucifixion proved Jesus was not the Messiah. The resurrection only proves that Jesus is the messiah to those unfamiliar with the idea of the Messiah. There is a reason why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, he did not fulfill the Messianic expectation. More so, there was absolutely no suggestion that the Messiah would be resurrected. If was only later that idea evolved out of a necessity.

And if the descent of David really proves nothing that hasn't been proven, why did the Gospel writers ever mention it? The reason because they were trying to prove Jesus was the messiah.
You are reading something that simply is not there. First, we have no idea what Peter really said. The Gospels are not first hand accounts. They most likely aren't even second hand accounts. They didn't know the eyewitnesses.

A lot of what is written is theological thought. The Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the idea. And there is no reason to treat them as such. Instead they are very theological in nature. More so, Peter changes throughout the Gospels anyway, so it is hard to say exactly who he was.

Either way, a virgin birth is not needed for Jesus to have a dual nature. I've already explained other ways for that to be. And obviously, John and Mark didn't need a virgin birth, and neither did Paul. Only Matthew and Luke ever mention it.
That is taking the Gospels out of their historical context. Especially since the first debates that we see among the Christians were with the Jews, trying to explain how their idea fit the Jewish scripture.

And that doesn't get Paul out of his Jewish context.
Doesn't matter if it is a secondary purpose. It still is a waste unless done through Joseph. And that is what the evidence shows. That is what Luke states.
　 Irenaeus, as far as I can see, never said that the genealogy in Luke came from Mary.
　 I saw nothing about the daughter of Heli. Doing a quick search, it did not appear. Also, manuscripts don't necessarily acquire words over the years. There are many instances in which we see just the opposite. There is more to textual criticism than you suggest.
I have no reason to hold the doctrine of the immaculate conception. I personally don't subscribe to it, and it really, we don't see the idea really coming around until centuries later. So we should see many manuscripts mentioning what you said. Yet, we don't. There is no reason to assume that Luke ever attributed the genealogy to Mary. There is no evidence.

I do not doubt the possibility that 1st century Jews would find reason to scoff at Jesus' descent from David through Mary.
So what. It is of no import; 1st century Jews had a full page of things to scoff at in Christianity and the list began with the resurrection.
Descent through Mary was way down the order of priority.
Christianity is not Judaism, that fact keeps getting by you.
And Luke's genealogy was written in the knowledge of, and conformity with, Jesus' duality of nature, the descent through David is of secondary importance to its structure.
The mirroring of son of God with son of God is its principal feature and Jesus was not 'son' by adoption.
Now Luke had just described the conception and birth of Jesus, your reading creates an internal contradiction, in addition to the external, that supposes that Luke could not remember what he had written only a few pages earlier.
And God was under no obligation to conform with any preconceptions in reagrds the birth of his son and could have raised up sons to David from the rocks.
　
What tracing the genenalogy through Mary proves is that God does so without regard to any preconceptions current in the community.
But the manner of descent as described in the OT allows for the kingship, and other rights in Israel, to come down through a daughter.
Or the line of kingship can be interrupted and a person other than the king's son can be appointed by a higher earthly power, and God trumps Pharaoh any day.
　
The Apostolic church was somewhat protected while seated in Jerusalem.
The Roman authority took continual, and harsh, measures to ensure that civil disturbance was kept to a minimum.
So the Romans acted as a check against persecutions in Jerusalem.
Nevertheless in the country side and at least as far away as Damascus the treatment of the Christian community was another matter.
So my view is that the Christian community could exist unmolested, as such, in Jerusalem because there it enjoyed the protection of the Roman authority and of the troops stationed in Antonia.
　
Your idea of kingly descent in the pagan world being exclusive of females does not allow for exceptions either.
Yet there were Hatshepsut and Cleopatra Pharaohs of Egypt, Artemesia Queen of Halicarnassus, Zenobia Queen of Palmyra and Athaliah Queen of Judah to mention but a few.
Yes, Judah had a Queen who ruled in her own right as a Davidic sovereign!
　
That some of the Gospel writers were Jews but still slanted their writings with a Gentile bias is support for the things that I have said about the early departure from Jewish authority.
And the community of Jewish followers of Yeshua has survived to this day.
　
Both Gentiles and Jews, of the time were well aware that descent can be counted through the female line.
And both Gentile and Jew had acknowledged the authority of female sovereigns ruling in their own right.
　
If you do not read that the crucifiction was an attack on Christianity, nor the beatings or stonings or ostracism etc what would constitute an attack in your view?
　
The charge that Jesus was a 'mamzer', that you so loudly repeat, is one of the earliest external records of Jewish attacks on Christianity, one that cannot conceal its Jewish origin.
The argument of the attack comes down to us from a Gentile, Celcus, but was clearly long established before it came from his pen, for he reproduces details that are found in the Talmud.
You are uncritically repeating him today and still referencing to the Book of Enoch for support.

 

[dmgdnooc]

cont.
The resurrection proved the Messiahship of Jesus.
The crucifiction did not disprove the resurrection.
Your idea, and it is widely held; imagines that the Apostles had a round-table discussion after the crucifiction to discuss what device would be best fabricated to prove they had been right all along; is contemptible of the recorded facts.
The 'idea' of the resurrection was the first thing preached after Pentecost, it was the engine that drove Paul through his mission.
　
Mary's genealogy through David to Adam demonstrates the descent of that aspect of Jesus' dual nature that was human, inherited by his descent from Adam - the other uniquely generated son of God.
Paul preached the duality of Jesus' nature and all the Gospels agree with that.
The progression in the Gospels is -
Mark wrote that Jesus was the son of God.
Matthew and Luke wrote that Jesus was the son of God and Mary.
John wrote explaining how that unique duality of nature came to be; by spirit begetting spirit and flesh, flesh.
So although the matter receives its fullest treatment in John it is clearly a teaching of the earliest church.
And, as I said earlier, the reasoning of duality and virgin birth are intertwined 1st order reasonings that follow immediately from the acceptance that Jesus is the son of God.
　
I suppose that after Paul and Mark there was a controversy as to the how and why Jesus acquired a duality of nature and that Matthew and Luke wrote to address this controversy.
And that John, because there is no end to controversy, wrote to address more fully the how and why of the matter.
That appears to be the progression of thought as presented in the NT.
　
Luke's genealogy is not there to prove that Jesus is the Messiah but to show his descent through the flesh from Adam.
The resurrection is the proof offered by Paul and all the Apostles and the Gospels for the Messiahship of Jesus.
Saying that Luke's genealogy is there to prove a thing that had already been proven is just not representative of the facts.
　
Truth is that I am reading just exactly what is there.
Your reasoning here is to say that the things that Peter is recorded to have said cannot be proved to be from Peter ,and because the history of the Gospels is uncertain, and they contain matters theological, and are not modern biographies, and Peter's character is seen to develop over time; that therefore whatever I read is 'simply not there'.
None of which addresses the points that I made.
That is a weird way of thinking, and discourse, to my mind.
　
You have not explained how the unique duality of Jesus' nature, as desribed in the NT, came about.
Divi filius does not explain it.
David's nature was not changed by him becoming a son of God, and the nature of no man can be changed except by the death of his body and resurrection to a new life.
But Jesus' nature did not need to be changed, he was, uniquely, wholly divine and wholly human as taught by the NT.
　
Paul said many things that are not recorded in his letters, so an argument from absence cannot be soundly applied.
Mark did not deal with the virgin birth, maybe he expected his readers to be able to reason it from the fact of Jesus' sonship.
But he seems to be a man in a hurry and writing, in part, as a response to Q with a Gentile bias.
John does not mention the 'virgin birth' by name but he provides the best base for reasoning its existence via his extensive remarks on the spirit and the flesh.
And it cannot be supposed, from John's late date, that he was unaware of the teaching in Matthew and Luke, yet he doesn't naysay them; quite the contrary, he provides the clearest key to understanding them.
　
The historical context is clearly shown by Paul's early ministry to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.
He persevered with the Jews until he was rejected by them (which was often a speedy process) and then he preached to the Gentiles.
The Gentiles were a feature of the earliest church, see Acts 10, and all the Gospels were written with a Gentile bias.
I cannot take Christianity out of its Gentile context that the engine of growth was in the Gentile community.
And I do not take Christianity out of its Jewish context.
I can see that the things that were being said about Jesus would immediately cause the Jewish authorities to erect a wall around their personal property, the worship of God, and exclude, by ostracism, persecution etc any who threatened the perceived purity of their worship.
　
It appears that the early Church fathers were mostly, though not exclusively, Jewish; so if their debates are what you are referring to you must acknowledge that Jewish Christians were debating with Jews.
But, to what debates are you referring?
　
You keep on making assertions like 'it (Luke's genealogy) was a waste unless done through Joseph' but have been unable to respond to my repeated postings showing that descent through a female has validity, even that a female could exercise David's sovereignty.
But to suppose that the secondary or tertiary readings of a passage should rule its understanding is an error.
　
Irenaeus says it clearly enough whether or not you can see it.
He was reading from 'Luke' Jesus' descent from Adam via David and through his mother, Mary.
　
As I intimated, I do not know the exact wording of Irenaeus' Luke.
Going on about the absence of a wording that I suggested as a possibility is merely dodging the issue.
And manuscripts do tend to pick up words over the years.
'the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them'
Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is much more to textual criticism than I have suggested, but at least the suggestions that I have made have been correct.
　
That neither you nor I hold to the doctrine of the immaculate conception is immaterial to the point that those who do hold it have influence in the realms of Biblical debate and studies.
　
And the evidence for attributing Luke's genealogy is both internal; in Luke's mirroring of son of God with son of God, the prominent featuring of Mary in his preceding chapters, the reasoning required for Jesus' dual nature; and external in Irenaeus' reference.
You can only say that 'there is no evidence' by opening your mouth and shutting up both your eyes and ears.