The virgin birth story.

[outhouse]

I think, we should look at this subject with a broader view

what broader view would that be???

and not limit our focus to only one thing without biasing.

he didnt say one biased word. what are you talking about???

it is impossible that Jesus didn't have a father

this is true

 

[fallingblood]

I think, we should look at this subject with a broader view, and not limit our focus to only one thing without biasing.

I am looking at the subject with a pretty broad view. The only thing I've really dismissed are the thing that can not be supported by evidence, or are historically unprovable. A virgin birth, being a miracle, is not something one can prove historically.

I mean, we should look at the fact that, from a time when even the earth didn't exist, and then human came into existence over billions of years. I believe this would give a much better and broader view, which takes us closer to reality. If we only consider that every human has parents, therefore it is impossible that Jesus didn't have a father, then this is narrowing our view. Which makes it like chicken and the egg story!

Claiming that Jesus had two parents isn't a narrow view. It is a view that nearly all of the evidence points to. There are logical reason for both birth stories being created. And the fact that they nearly agree on nothing, suggests that there is little reason to assume they have any historical facts, or at least none that could really be proven.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am looking at the subject with a pretty broad view. The only thing I've really dismissed are the thing that can not be supported by evidence, or are historically unprovable. A virgin birth, being a miracle, is not something one can prove historically.

Yes, Religious matters and God are not things that one can prove their truth based on history or science. For example they are not like Math that one can show 1+1=2, therefore that's truth.
People understand these things using their own intellectual power.

Claiming that Jesus had two parents isn't a narrow view. It is a view that nearly all of the evidence points to. There are logical reason for both birth stories being created. And the fact that they nearly agree on nothing, suggests that there is little reason to assume they have any historical facts, or at least none that could really be proven.

I am not insisting that one has to accept that Jesus didn't have father. Neither It is provable based on history. But, I think, just because one can not have an explanation how that could have happened, one cannot claim that it was absolutely impossible for such a thing to happen.


- Peace

 

[outhouse]

one cannot claim that it was absolutely impossible for such a thing to happen.

what 6+ billion people on the planet right now.

one thing every last one of them has in common is it took a male and female to create a child.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, Religious matters and God are not things that one can prove their truth based on history or science. For example they are not like Math that one can show 1+1=2, therefore that's truth.
People understand these things using their own intellectual power.

True; however, when speaking about religious ideas in a historical sense, there are things that can be proven to be most likely what happened.

I am not insisting that one has to accept that Jesus didn't have father. Neither It is provable based on history. But, I think, just because one can not have an explanation how that could have happened, one cannot claim that it was absolutely impossible for such a thing to happen.


- Peace

Yes, it is not absolutely impossible, but it is extremely improbable, to the point in which we can rule it out.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I agree; however, I see no place for faith based assumptions in such a paper. I look at this as a historian. I want to see evidence for the claims that are being made, and not simply tradition that was passed down later on, by people who already had faith of the claims they were supporting.

I'm not very interested in what Early Church Fathers have to say in this case though. They dealt in apologetics. For the most part, they aren't always even basing their information on facts. More so, Christians don't agree with everything they wrote anymore.

The Gospel of Luke is enough for me. Looking at the passage, it is clear who the genealogy is. It specifically states that it is of Joseph. That is why they use Joseph as the starting point, and tell us that he was the son of Heli. There really is no wiggle room here. We are told that Jesus is the son of Joseph (or at least that was thought to be the case), and that Joseph was the son of Heli, and so on and so forth. There is no mention of Mary. Not even an off hand suggestion.

More so, there is no reason for a genealogy to go through the mothers side. It would show nothing, as the significance was through the father's side (even if it was just an adoptive father). And there is no reason to mention Joseph in that account unless it was his genealogy. Logic, and a brief knowledge of Jewish customs shows us beyond a doubt that the genealogy in Luke is that of Joseph. Again, that is why it specifically states that.
Ireneaus was wrong about the case above though. So why should we assume he is right about what Paul is stating? I can point out many scholars, throughout history, who would agree with my reading, but that really shows nothing. In order for you point to be valid, you would have to show that was the general consensus up through the ages, and not just that of one Church Father who is known to have twisted the facts in order to support his cause.

And since Paul never mentions anything of the such, nothing about Mary, or Jesus having a divine birth, I see no reason to assume that is what Paul is talking about. Without the Gospels influencing your thought, it is highly unlikely that you would see that verse in the same light.
You are relying on tradition. Your use of the Church Fathers is part of that tradition.

We have no evidence that Paul ever met with the writers of the Gospels. The writer of the Gospels were not the Apostles. That idea is part of the Christian tradition.

The only individual who may have known Paul, from the evidence we have, is that author of Luke, and that is even debated. As for Mark, Matthew, and John, there is no suggestion that those authors knew of Paul. If you want to hold such an idea, you need to show a reason to actually believe such. You need to provide some evidence for such a belief. As it stands, there is no evidence, and thus it is not logical to assume that they knew each other. That is making an unfounded assumption, and I see little room for that in a historical matter.

Paul never states anything about the direct agency of God in the birth of Jesus. I am aware that Paul had an idea of Jesus having a dual nature. One that was physical, and one that was spiritual. However, there is no suggestion in Paul that the two crossed. Paul, for the most part, talks of Jesus after the resurrection. Paul is interested in a post-resurrection Jesus that is spiritual.

When Paul speaks of Jesus as a physical being, during the life of Jesus, nothing miraculous is being described. Very little is actually mentioned. We are told that he was born of a woman, born of the flesh, born under the law. To say anything else from Paul about the birth of Jesus is adding additional material to Paul. Because as it stands, you can't show with Paul the idea Mary was a virgin (that never even comes up), or that Paul thought God impregnated Mary. Neither idea is stated or suggested.

Seems to me you are a strange historian.
Seems that you give weight eclectically to the OT over the NT, to Jewish tradition, listen to pagan traditions but not at all to Christian traditions, to external evidences over the internal.
You discount Christian tradition on the basis that it was handed down later than the scriptures; are you sure about that?
　
The passage from Irenaeus was cited to show his association of Luke's genealogy with Mary, and, by extension, that the Christian tradition of Mary's genealogy enjoys a long history.
And you might consider that Irenaeus knew the scripture and what was written there.
Your position requires that Joseph had 2 genealogies or that 1 or both of them are spurious.
Mine ascribes Matthew's genealogy to Joseph, and the central actor in Matt1 is Joseph.
And Luke's genealogy to Mary, and Mary's pov is prominent in Luke.
I think mine is the simplest solution to the apparent contradiction, and is therfore the most likely.
　
If Mary was an only child or had no brothers there would be much in 'Jewish customs' to compel her to retain the family genealogy in her possession.
Even sentiment might cause her to have a copy or to memorise it.
But the reason for Luke recording Mary's genealogy is to link Jesus with Adam; son of God with son of God.
　
Irenaeus was not wrong about the genealogy in Luke, he read what was before him.
To assume that you are right, only having access to manuscripts produced long after Irenaeus, is more than a little hubristic.
Especially when considering that Irenaeus' manuscript is closer to the source and quite different; he has it as Mary's genealogy with only 72 generations.
Later manuscripts have it as Joseph's other genealogy with 77 generations (imitating the arrangement of 7s in Matthew).
What manuscript should, in the normal course of scholarship, have the preeminence?
　
Irenaeus was right about Luke's genealogy.
But even if he were wrong it doesn't make him worng about Romans also, please, that suggestion is over the line, out of court, foul ball.
You're kidding me here.
You're suggesting that the people Paul was writing to had no background to what he was saying.
That they were all blank slates, empty vessels who simply could not follow the extended reasoning he lay before them.
They were an educated and sophisticated church well versed in the Gospel and the Scriptures and that is exactly how they would have understood Paul's reasoning.
　
I am not relying on tradition.
That Irenaeus had a Luke that is quite different to our Luke is a fact.
That he follows Paul's extended reasoning in Romans is also a fact, but my reliance is on my own understanding of Paul's argument; as I mentioned.
　
I did not say that Paul met with the Gospel writers.
I said that an argument based on the assumption that Paul had no conversation with the Apostles is flawed.
Acts and his own letters record meetings with the Apostles.
My assumption is that they talked about more than is recorded and I think it is a pretty safe assumption.
　
Paul says it in the very passage you seem unable to read.
... the Gospel of God ...
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh;
and declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead.
You read this and say that Paul means that Jesus has a human father and a human mother; that he was born only according to the flesh and not also according to the spirit of holiness.
　
Paul does not say 'direct agency of God' but he menas those very words when he say Son of God.
There is no Son of God except by the direct agency of God, there is no accidental Sonship to that Father.
And he does not say that the 'woman' was a virgin, Mary's virginity needs to be understood as a requirement of the OT.
Ideas like the purity of vessels, holiness, Priestly marriage, no mixing of seeds, a parity with Adam, seed of the woman, a man from/by/with Yahweh, God will provide the sacrifice.
Many layers of ideas point to and converge at the necessity of a virgin birth.
That there is no record of Paul putting the ideas together into a cogent argument does not disprove them or indicate that he was unaware of them.
　
Paul's emphasis on the resurrection is because it proves Jesus' parentage so much more forcefully than anything else.
As the High Priest's chief interrogator and enforcer, he did not accept the testimony of the Apostles or of the Saints, he did not accept the reports of miracles, or the words of Jesus' preaching that had been recounted in his hearing, he would not accept Mary's word.
But when confronted with the risen Christ he had to accept that.
And when preaching the Gospel the resurrection remains his major theme; he appears to be not much concerned with the birth or Ministry or in the sayings or doings of Jesus.
And in his letters his concerns are often focussed on specific pastoral matters, those practical aspects of conduct and strifes that plague churches the world over, and in answering specific questions.
It so often looks to be a matter of damage control I'm occasionally surprised that he managed to say the things that he does about Jesus in the days of his flesh.
　
So I am left with - the idea, of a virgin birth, is not definitively stated - nor is it countermanded.
However the suggestion of the idea is evident in Paul's treatment of the subject.
But I acknowledge that the evidence will not be apparent to those who cannot read Paul's extended arguments or understand the layered meaning of his words.

 

[outhouse]

Seems to me you are a strange historian.
Seems that you give weight eclectically to the OT over the NT, to Jewish tradition, listen to pagan traditions but not at all to Christian traditions, to external evidences over the internal.
You discount Christian tradition on the basis that it was handed down later than the scriptures; are you sure about that?
　
The passage from Irenaeus was cited to show his association of Luke's genealogy with Mary, and, by extension, that the Christian tradition of Mary's genealogy enjoys a long history.
And you might consider that Irenaeus knew the scripture and what was written there.
Your position requires that Joseph had 2 genealogies or that 1 or both of them are spurious.
Mine ascribes Matthew's genealogy to Joseph, and the central actor in Matt1 is Joseph.
And Luke's genealogy to Mary, and Mary's pov is prominent in Luke.
I think mine is the simplest solution to the apparent contradiction, and is therfore the most likely.
　
If Mary was an only child or had no brothers there would be much in 'Jewish customs' to compel her to retain the family genealogy in her possession.
Even sentiment might cause her to have a copy or to memorise it.
But the reason for Luke recording Mary's genealogy is to link Jesus with Adam; son of God with son of God.
　
Irenaeus was not wrong about the genealogy in Luke, he read what was before him.
To assume that you are right, only having access to manuscripts produced long after Irenaeus, is more than a little hubristic.
Especially when considering that Irenaeus' manuscript is closer to the source and quite different; he has it as Mary's genealogy with only 72 generations.
Later manuscripts have it as Joseph's other genealogy with 77 generations (imitating the arrangement of 7s in Matthew).
What manuscript should, in the normal course of scholarship, have the preeminence?
　
Irenaeus was right about Luke's genealogy.
But even if he were wrong it doesn't make him worng about Romans also, please, that suggestion is over the line, out of court, foul ball.
You're kidding me here.
You're suggesting that the people Paul was writing to had no background to what he was saying.
That they were all blank slates, empty vessels who simply could not follow the extended reasoning he lay before them.
They were an educated and sophisticated church well versed in the Gospel and the Scriptures and that is exactly how they would have understood Paul's reasoning.
　
I am not relying on tradition.
That Irenaeus had a Luke that is quite different to our Luke is a fact.
That he follows Paul's extended reasoning in Romans is also a fact, but my reliance is on my own understanding of Paul's argument; as I mentioned.
　
I did not say that Paul met with the Gospel writers.
I said that an argument based on the assumption that Paul had no conversation with the Apostles is flawed.
Acts and his own letters record meetings with the Apostles.
My assumption is that they talked about more than is recorded and I think it is a pretty safe assumption.
　
Paul says it in the very passage you seem unable to read.
... the Gospel of God ...
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh;
and declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead.
You read this and say that Paul means that Jesus has a human father and a human mother; that he was born only according to the flesh and not also according to the spirit of holiness.
　
Paul does not say 'direct agency of God' but he menas those very words when he say Son of God.
There is no Son of God except by the direct agency of God, there is no accidental Sonship to that Father.
And he does not say that the 'woman' was a virgin, Mary's virginity needs to be understood as a requirement of the OT.
Ideas like the purity of vessels, holiness, Priestly marriage, no mixing of seeds, a parity with Adam, seed of the woman, a man from/by/with Yahweh, God will provide the sacrifice.
Many layers of ideas point to and converge at the necessity of a virgin birth.
That there is no record of Paul putting the ideas together into a cogent argument does not disprove them or indicate that he was unaware of them.
　
Paul's emphasis on the resurrection is because it proves Jesus' parentage so much more forcefully than anything else.
As the High Priest's chief interrogator and enforcer, he did not accept the testimony of the Apostles or of the Saints, he did not accept the reports of miracles, or the words of Jesus' preaching that had been recounted in his hearing, he would not accept Mary's word.
But when confronted with the risen Christ he had to accept that.
And when preaching the Gospel the resurrection remains his major theme; he appears to be not much concerned with the birth or Ministry or in the sayings or doings of Jesus.
And in his letters his concerns are often focussed on specific pastoral matters, those practical aspects of conduct and strifes that plague churches the world over, and in answering specific questions.
It so often looks to be a matter of damage control I'm occasionally surprised that he managed to say the things that he does about Jesus in the days of his flesh.
　
So I am left with - the idea, of a virgin birth, is not definitively stated - nor is it countermanded.
However the suggestion of the idea is evident in Paul's treatment of the subject.
But I acknowledge that the evidence will not be apparent to those who cannot read Paul's extended arguments or understand the layered meaning of his words.

your are cunfusing gospel as accurate history.

it is not

 

[dmgdnooc]

continued:

For the passage in Jeremiah, I will drop as I'm not quite sure which verse I was trying to think of.

For Psalms, if read in context, it is clear that it is meant to be David. Psalms 2 is regarded as the words of King David (either written by him or Nathan). The fact that he states that the message is to him, shows that it is David who is being spoken of.

The later accreditation that Acts gives it is just one more example of the Gospel writers searching into the Old Testament to find verses that they can manipulate to mean something they aren't.

In order to understand what the New Testament writers meant by the use of the word Son of God, one must look into the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the way in which the term was being used by others during that time. The Gospels did not evolve in isolation. They were greatly influence by the Jewish ideas that they were founded on. Thus, how the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and books such as Enoch use the term are important in this discussion. Without realizing how the word was being used at the time, it takes the whole idea out of context.
Even read as a whole, as I've pointed out when you quoted the whole verse, it does not state what you are saying. It never talks about a virgin birth, or a miraculous birth.
It doesn't need to appear in the Bible to be of use. It shows that the term son of God was being used elsewhere and did not imply a miraculous birth. It helps place the idea into a historical setting.

In fact, we see this to be true for other writings as well. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ephesians was most likely not written by Paul. The general consensus is that is is Pseudo-Pauline.
This is a theological argument, and not a historical argument. It's fine if you believe this, but there is little evidence to support such a position.
Check out Bart D. Ehrman. He has various books that speak of the best manuscripts and why that are considered such.

There is a reason why most modern translations are getting rid of the word Begotten. The NRSV has gotten rid of it, the NIV. Here is an alright overview: John 3:16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you say the early church, you are not being completely honest. You have found what one church father believed. He in no way represented the entire early church. And as explain above, it is clear he was wrong.

Psalm 2, in Acts, is ascribed to David and applied to Jesus, as being 'the son of David'.
The Babylonian Talmud treats it as a prophecy fortelling of 'the son of David', so too the Genesis Rabbah, and the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, and the Midrash, and Maimonides, and so through the progression of Judaic understanding.
So both Judaism and Christianity apply this Psalm to the Messiah, the 'son of David' who would come.
The Christian writers did no such thing as to search for this verse to manipulate it, they applied it to the 'son of David' in accordance with the generally held understanding of their time.
It sounds to me like you should take your own admonition to heart and read the NT in the context of the OT and with an understanding of the usages of the time.
　
Read as a whole sentence the verse from Romans identifies God as Jesus' male parent, that parentage ensured that Jesus would be born 'according to the spirit of holiness'.
　
I do not suggest that the Bible is the only source for my understanding.
I reference you to Irenaeus, the Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc my problem with your reference to the Book of Enoch is that you provide no chapter and verse that I can go to.
Must I take your word for it, or read the whole thing for one doubtful reference?
　
'Ephesians was most likely not written by Paul'
That does nothing to answer the substance of my point.
And it is by no means certain that Paul did not write Ephesians.
　
It may be a 'theological argument' however it is also historical in that the evidence is from the words of Paul to demonstrate what he was teaching.
Belief does not enter into it, all I did here was summarise Paul's own view from his writings.
　
I will put Ehrman on my list.
The reference you gave is to a discussion centred around the 'love' of John 3.16 and not the only-begottenness of Jesus.
In fact your article serves as evidence for my point that Jesus is the special, unique, only-begotten, one-of-a-kind, only Son of God.
　
You do not know that Irenaeus was wrong about Luke's genealogy.
There is much evidence to indicate that he was correct.

 

[fallingblood]

Psalm 2, in Acts, is ascribed to David and applied to Jesus, as being 'the son of David'.
The Babylonian Talmud treats it as a prophecy fortelling of 'the son of David', so too the Genesis Rabbah, and the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, and the Midrash, and Maimonides, and so through the progression of Judaic understanding.
So both Judaism and Christianity apply this Psalm to the Messiah, the 'son of David' who would come.
The Christian writers did no such thing as to search for this verse to manipulate it, they applied it to the 'son of David' in accordance with the generally held understanding of their time.
It sounds to me like you should take your own admonition to heart and read the NT in the context of the OT and with an understanding of the usages of the time.

We can see countless times in which the NT writers searched the OT to find supposed prophecies of the Messiah. We see a very clear case of this in Matthew, where he quotes Isaiah as saying that a virgin will give birth to a Messiah (I'm paraphrasing, but the point is there). However, the passage in Isaiah has nothing to do with a virgin, or a prophecy for the Messiah. In fact, the prophecy had already occurred long before the time of Jesus.

Since we know that the NT writers manipulated the OT to provide Jesus the claim of being the Messiah, it is not incredible to suggest that is what happened here. Reading the quote in Psalms, there is no mention of a Messiah. To link it up with Jesus then is based on faith. Especially when Jesus never fulfilled the expectations of the Messiah anyway.

So even if we assume it had anything to do with a future Messiah, it still couldn't refer to Jesus, who failed as the Messiah.

And again, we see the term Son of God appearing in other various works, such as Enoch (which you dismiss for no logical reason) and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels are not isolated writings. They borrowed ideas from various other sources.
　

Read as a whole sentence the verse from Romans identifies God as Jesus' male parent, that parentage ensured that Jesus would be born 'according to the spirit of holiness'.

Only if you are looking for such. It never states anything about Jesus being born of God. Being born according to the spirit of holiness is something very different. That could refer really to any person who is considered holy, such as a prophet.
　

I do not suggest that the Bible is the only source for my understanding.
I reference you to Irenaeus, the Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc my problem with your reference to the Book of Enoch is that you provide no chapter and verse that I can go to.
Must I take your word for it, or read the whole thing for one doubtful reference?

That is not why you suggested you dismissed it. Instead, you said it wasn't in your Bible, suggesting that the reason you dismissed it was because it was not scripture. You're changing what you said now. I will refer you to the work of Paula Fredriksen. Her book, From Jesus to Christ, has a lot of great information, and includes how the term son of God has been used. As she points out, the title son of God could be used for any of the Royalty. And even in post-Biblical Judaism, it may have referred to a Messiah, but not an actual son of God.

　
'Ephesians was most likely not written by Paul'
That does nothing to answer the substance of my point.
And it is by no means certain that Paul did not write Ephesians.

If Paul did not writer Ephesians, which is generally accepted to be the case, nothing in it can be used to try to prove anything about Paul.
　

It may be a 'theological argument' however it is also historical in that the evidence is from the words of Paul to demonstrate what he was teaching.
Belief does not enter into it, all I did here was summarise Paul's own view from his writings.

Your belief greatly influences how you summarized Paul's view. Also, it seems like you have taken Paul out of his Jewish roots.

　
I will put Ehrman on my list.
The reference you gave is to a discussion centred around the 'love' of John 3.16 and not the only-begottenness of Jesus.
In fact your article serves as evidence for my point that Jesus is the special, unique, only-begotten, one-of-a-kind, only Son of God.

Actually, the link I gave does not support your idea that Jesus was the only-begotten son. It may support an idea that Jesus was unique, but it doesn't exactly say how. It never says he was the only Son of God.
　

You do not know that Irenaeus was wrong about Luke's genealogy.
There is much evidence to indicate that he was correct.

There is no evidence that he was correct. The fact that Luke specifically states that genealogy went through Joseph shows Irenaeus to be wrong. There should be no debate on this as Luke tells us who the genealogy is through: Joseph.

 

[fallingblood]

Seems to me you are a strange historian.
Seems that you give weight eclectically to the OT over the NT, to Jewish tradition, listen to pagan traditions but not at all to Christian traditions, to external evidences over the internal.
You discount Christian tradition on the basis that it was handed down later than the scriptures; are you sure about that?

I'm placing the NT into a context that it fits. I'm placing Jesus into his context. I don't give priority to the OT, or pagan traditions (I don't think I have even really supported any pagan traditions). I discount some Christian tradition as it disagrees with what we know about Judaism in the 1st century. And yes, I know that much of the Church tradition was created after Jesus.
　

The passage from Irenaeus was cited to show his association of Luke's genealogy with Mary, and, by extension, that the Christian tradition of Mary's genealogy enjoys a long history.
And you might consider that Irenaeus knew the scripture and what was written there.
Your position requires that Joseph had 2 genealogies or that 1 or both of them are spurious.
Mine ascribes Matthew's genealogy to Joseph, and the central actor in Matt1 is Joseph.
And Luke's genealogy to Mary, and Mary's pov is prominent in Luke.
I think mine is the simplest solution to the apparent contradiction, and is therfore the most likely.

Yours isn't the simplest solution. The simplest solution is that there is a contradiction. And really, it is as simple as that. Luke and Matthew both tell us exactly who the genealogy goes through; Joseph. There really should be no debate here and Luke makes it clear.

And looking at Matthew's genealogy, it isn't correct anyway. All you have to do is compare it to the Old Testament to see that it has some major discrepancies.

　
If Mary was an only child or had no brothers there would be much in 'Jewish customs' to compel her to retain the family genealogy in her possession.
Even sentiment might cause her to have a copy or to memorise it.
But the reason for Luke recording Mary's genealogy is to link Jesus with Adam; son of God with son of God.

Complete assumption based on nothing at all. Also, you just admitted that there was more than one son of God. So Jesus can't be the only, as you've just stated.

There is no reason to assume that the genealogy in Luke is from Mary, especially since it states exactly the opposite.
　

Irenaeus was not wrong about the genealogy in Luke, he read what was before him.
To assume that you are right, only having access to manuscripts produced long after Irenaeus, is more than a little hubristic.
Especially when considering that Irenaeus' manuscript is closer to the source and quite different; he has it as Mary's genealogy with only 72 generations.
Later manuscripts have it as Joseph's other genealogy with 77 generations (imitating the arrangement of 7s in Matthew).
What manuscript should, in the normal course of scholarship, have the preeminence?

Yes, Irenaeus read what was before him. And he either read it wrong, or manipulated it to fit his own idea.

It is as simple as that. As for what manuscript Irenaeus was using? We can't say. He could have been using a very flawed manuscripts, and we in fact know that the first copies were the most flawed. Later copies were done by professionals. The first copies, for the most part, were done by anyone who could read and write, hardly professional at all.

And again, you are relying on church tradition, and unfounded assumptions.
　

Irenaeus was right about Luke's genealogy.
But even if he were wrong it doesn't make him worng about Romans also, please, that suggestion is over the line, out of court, foul ball.
You're kidding me here.
You're suggesting that the people Paul was writing to had no background to what he was saying.
That they were all blank slates, empty vessels who simply could not follow the extended reasoning he lay before them.
They were an educated and sophisticated church well versed in the Gospel and the Scriptures and that is exactly how they would have understood Paul's reasoning.

Again, unfounded assumption. As far as we know, the people Paul was preaching to hard just recently heard about the message of Jesus. And the Gospel is very different than the Gospels we have. More so, not all of them would have been well-versed in scripture, or even educated. In fact, we can safely assume most of them were uneducated by simple statistics.

You need something more than unfounded assumptions to convince me.
　

I am not relying on tradition.
That Irenaeus had a Luke that is quite different to our Luke is a fact.
That he follows Paul's extended reasoning in Romans is also a fact, but my reliance is on my own understanding of Paul's argument; as I mentioned.

You do rely on tradition. Relying on Irenaeus is relying on tradition. And your facts are not facts, they are assumptions. You can't point to the text Irenaeus was using. You can't say whether it was better or not. You can say very little about it.
　

I did not say that Paul met with the Gospel writers.
I said that an argument based on the assumption that Paul had no conversation with the Apostles is flawed.
Acts and his own letters record meetings with the Apostles.
My assumption is that they talked about more than is recorded and I think it is a pretty safe assumption.

I never said that Paul never met with the Apostles. I accept that he met with at least Peter and John, and probably others. However, this has nothing to do with the Gospel writers.
　

Paul says it in the very passage you seem unable to read.
... the Gospel of God ...
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh;
and declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead.
You read this and say that Paul means that Jesus has a human father and a human mother; that he was born only according to the flesh and not also according to the spirit of holiness.

Spirit of holiness does not mean God. You haven't shown how Paul says that it was a miraculous birth, or one that was not completely normal. You have never shown that Paul thought Mary was a virgin, or that God was the father. You are reading something that is not there. Repeating it over and over again does not make your opinion right. You must show some evidence.
　

Paul does not say 'direct agency of God' but he menas those very words when he say Son of God.
There is no Son of God except by the direct agency of God, there is no accidental Sonship to that Father.
And he does not say that the 'woman' was a virgin, Mary's virginity needs to be understood as a requirement of the OT.
Ideas like the purity of vessels, holiness, Priestly marriage, no mixing of seeds, a parity with Adam, seed of the woman, a man from/by/with Yahweh, God will provide the sacrifice.
Many layers of ideas point to and converge at the necessity of a virgin birth.
That there is no record of Paul putting the ideas together into a cogent argument does not disprove them or indicate that he was unaware of them.

You assume way to much, and you take Paul out of his Jewish background. You need to understand what the term Son of God meant during that time to make any sense of what Paul is saying.

Also, there is no requirement of virginity in the OT. The one verse used in Isaiah mentions a young woman, not a virgin. You have shown nothing except that you can make wild assumptions based on ignorance.
　

Paul's emphasis on the resurrection is because it proves Jesus' parentage so much more forcefully than anything else.
As the High Priest's chief interrogator and enforcer, he did not accept the testimony of the Apostles or of the Saints, he did not accept the reports of miracles, or the words of Jesus' preaching that had been recounted in his hearing, he would not accept Mary's word.
But when confronted with the risen Christ he had to accept that.
And when preaching the Gospel the resurrection remains his major theme; he appears to be not much concerned with the birth or Ministry or in the sayings or doings of Jesus.
And in his letters his concerns are often focussed on specific pastoral matters, those practical aspects of conduct and strifes that plague churches the world over, and in answering specific questions.
It so often looks to be a matter of damage control I'm occasionally surprised that he managed to say the things that he does about Jesus in the days of his flesh.

Assumptions based on your faith. That is all you're doing here.

　
So I am left with - the idea, of a virgin birth, is not definitively stated - nor is it countermanded.
However the suggestion of the idea is evident in Paul's treatment of the subject.
But I acknowledge that the evidence will not be apparent to those who cannot read Paul's extended arguments or understand the layered meaning of his words.

There is no reason to assume Paul knew of the idea of a virgin birth, or subscribe to it. He makes no suggestion. To assume that he does relies on faith.

In order to get Paul to suggest something about a virgin birth, you first have to have knowledge that the virgin birth was an idea that later originated. You then have to take that idea and place it into Paul, even though Paul never said anything about that.

It is fine if you have faith. However faith does not equal facts. There is a major difference.

 

[dmgdnooc]

We can see countless times in which the NT writers searched the OT to find supposed prophecies of the Messiah. We see a very clear case of this in Matthew, where he quotes Isaiah as saying that a virgin will give birth to a Messiah (I'm paraphrasing, but the point is there). However, the passage in Isaiah has nothing to do with a virgin, or a prophecy for the Messiah. In fact, the prophecy had already occurred long before the time of Jesus.

Since we know that the NT writers manipulated the OT to provide Jesus the claim of being the Messiah, it is not incredible to suggest that is what happened here. Reading the quote in Psalms, there is no mention of a Messiah. To link it up with Jesus then is based on faith. Especially when Jesus never fulfilled the expectations of the Messiah anyway.

So even if we assume it had anything to do with a future Messiah, it still couldn't refer to Jesus, who failed as the Messiah.

And again, we see the term Son of God appearing in other various works, such as Enoch (which you dismiss for no logical reason) and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels are not isolated writings. They borrowed ideas from various other sources.
　 Only if you are looking for such. It never states anything about Jesus being born of God. Being born according to the spirit of holiness is something very different. That could refer really to any person who is considered holy, such as a prophet.
　 That is not why you suggested you dismissed it. Instead, you said it wasn't in your Bible, suggesting that the reason you dismissed it was because it was not scripture. You're changing what you said now. I will refer you to the work of Paula Fredriksen. Her book, From Jesus to Christ, has a lot of great information, and includes how the term son of God has been used. As she points out, the title son of God could be used for any of the Royalty. And even in post-Biblical Judaism, it may have referred to a Messiah, but not an actual son of God.
If Paul did not writer Ephesians, which is generally accepted to be the case, nothing in it can be used to try to prove anything about Paul.
　 Your belief greatly influences how you summarized Paul's view. Also, it seems like you have taken Paul out of his Jewish roots.
Actually, the link I gave does not support your idea that Jesus was the only-begotten son. It may support an idea that Jesus was unique, but it doesn't exactly say how. It never says he was the only Son of God.
　
There is no evidence that he was correct. The fact that Luke specifically states that genealogy went through Joseph shows Irenaeus to be wrong. There should be no debate on this as Luke tells us who the genealogy is through: Joseph.

The verse in question is from Psalm 2.
It is not an acceptable MO to paint all references indiscriminately in your preferred colours.
You were wrong about the verse, why not just admit it?
　
It seems that you do not understand Jesus' Messiahship either.
There is a dual aspect to that also.
Broadly described as having a 'suffering servant' aspect and a 'militaristic or restorationist' aspect.
A first and a second advent, you must have heard about it.
Anyone with this understanding of the Messiah, as the Apostles had, would find no difficulty or contradiction in applying Psalm 2 to Jesus.
But again you strictly adhere to the Jewish view that there is only one advent resulting in a military restoration by a suffering servant.
　
The logical reason that I asked for a reference in Enoch was so that I didn't have to read the whole book searching for one doubtful reference.
You're the only one in this conversation that is dismissing relevant sources.
　
The sentence says 'Jesus was born according to the flesh' (your own words) then it goes on to say in the other half of the couplet that he was also born 'according to the spirit of holiness'.
I think that if the subject was almost anything else your grammatical skills would easily recognise the ellipsis by the coupling of the language.
Can you recognise that it could mean what I, and Irenaeus, have said it means?
And not 'only if you ar looking for such' but because ellipsis is a device of language familiar in speech and literature and used throughout the Scriptures.
Maybe you are just demanding an exactitude of language that forbids the use of language's devices; looking for a legalistic and repetitive form that would faithfully repeat the word 'born' as a preface to every 'according to'.
　
OK, I said 'it isn't in my Bible' and you cut out the sentence that followed "Please provide references.' that's plain dishonest.
So you won't provide the reference to Enoch but suggest that I also read Fredrikson.
I have a pretty good idea of how the term 'son of God' is used but if I ever come across her I will consider it.
But here I must say that you seem to have read more books about the Bible than you have read of the Bible.
　
I don't accept that Paul did not write Ephesians and can cite, probably, as many scholars as you to back my view.
But you're still not answering the point which was the duality of Christ's nature in the days of his flesh.
Jesus is regarded by the NT to have a dual nature, no matter who wrote what book, and a virgin birth is wholly consistent with, in fact is a requirement of, that view.
　
I think that my belief has been influenced by what Paul wrote, but that your belief disables you from understanding what he has plainly written.
And as to Paul's Jewish roots, I don't think he ever left them even when he was cast out.
I think that you have allowed later Rabbinical Judaism to over influence your thinking on the NT, OT as well for that matter.
　
unique, only-begotten, only, one and only, his only born - all from the page you cited and all in support of what I have said.
There is no suggestion anywhere there or elsewhere, that I am aware of, that would undermine the sense of Jesus' uniqueness in either his parentage from God or the duality of the unique dual nature thereby imparted.
He was/is one-of-a-kind.
　
Irenaeus was reading from the manuscript before him.
That was clearly a different manuscript to the one that has come down to us and was prior to our earliest version.
He could not be wrong, his manuscript may have been; are you arguing that the prior manuscript with fewer words is less reliable than a later manuscript with more words?
　
Our later manuscripts of Luke have Joseph son of Heli, Irenaeus' had Mary daughter of Heli, or words to that effect.
There must be debate, there is evidence on both sides of the question.
I think that the weight of evidence is for Irenaeus' reading.

 

[fallingblood]

The verse in question is from Psalm 2.
It is not an acceptable MO to paint all references indiscriminately in your preferred colours.
You were wrong about the verse, why not just admit it?

I know the verse is from Psalms 2. It is the one I addressed. And it is David speaking, saying he is the begotten son of God. There is no mention of the Messiah. What we do know is that later one, the Old Testament was searched for signs of the Messiah. Various verses were attributed to the Messiah that were not actually about the Messiah.

As for the passage I mentioned in Matthew, it was just to show that the Gospel writers, on more than one occasion, searched the Old Testament for scriptures they could change to make them about the Messiah. I was simply providing evidence for my claim.

　
It seems that you do not understand Jesus' Messiahship either.
There is a dual aspect to that also.
Broadly described as having a 'suffering servant' aspect and a 'militaristic or restorationist' aspect.
A first and a second advent, you must have heard about it.
Anyone with this understanding of the Messiah, as the Apostles had, would find no difficulty or contradiction in applying Psalm 2 to Jesus.
But again you strictly adhere to the Jewish view that there is only one advent resulting in a military restoration by a suffering servant.

Of course I'm adhering to the Jewish view. Jesus and the apostles were Jews. They were under the umbrella of Judaism. They were Jews, with a Jewish message, for a Jewish audience. It would be silly not to adhered to the Jewish idea, as to not would mean to take Jesus out of his historical context.

As for the suffering servant, the Old Testament never states anything about a suffering Messiah. It wasn't until after Jesus that the idea rose. And then, as we saw above, the NT writers searched the OT and found verses they could manipulate to fit the story of Jesus.

　
The logical reason that I asked for a reference in Enoch was so that I didn't have to read the whole book searching for one doubtful reference.
You're the only one in this conversation that is dismissing relevant sources.

How am I dismissing relevant sources? I explained why some of the opinions in the sources you presented simply were wrong. I didn't just dismiss them. There is a difference.

　
The sentence says 'Jesus was born according to the flesh' (your own words) then it goes on to say in the other half of the couplet that he was also born 'according to the spirit of holiness'.
I think that if the subject was almost anything else your grammatical skills would easily recognise the ellipsis by the coupling of the language.
Can you recognise that it could mean what I, and Irenaeus, have said it means?
And not 'only if you ar looking for such' but because ellipsis is a device of language familiar in speech and literature and used throughout the Scriptures.
Maybe you are just demanding an exactitude of language that forbids the use of language's devices; looking for a legalistic and repetitive form that would faithfully repeat the word 'born' as a preface to every 'according to'.

According to the spirit of holiness does not mean God. That's why I reject your idea. A prophet could be said to be born according to the spirit of holiness, and that would not mean that they were born from God fathering a child.

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.

　
OK, I said 'it isn't in my Bible' and you cut out the sentence that followed "Please provide references.' that's plain dishonest.
So you won't provide the reference to Enoch but suggest that I also read Fredrikson.
I have a pretty good idea of how the term 'son of God' is used but if I ever come across her I will consider it.
But here I must say that you seem to have read more books about the Bible than you have read of the Bible.

I've studied both the Bible, as well as books ranging from commentaries, to historical studies on various subjects on the New Testament. There is no reason to try to discredit that. And really, in order to understand the Bible, you need more than just the Bible. You need a background.

And I wasn't being dishonest. I may have mistaken your meaning, but that is not being dishonest.

　
I don't accept that Paul did not write Ephesians and can cite, probably, as many scholars as you to back my view.
But you're still not answering the point which was the duality of Christ's nature in the days of his flesh.
Jesus is regarded by the NT to have a dual nature, no matter who wrote what book, and a virgin birth is wholly consistent with, in fact is a requirement of, that view.

A virgin birth is not a requirement of believing Jesus had a dual nature. One could just as easily believe in the dual nature, and have Jesus be adopted by God, say at his baptism. Or, as Paul states, after the resurrection of Jesus.

As for using Ephesians, since it is of debatable credibility, I see little reason to rely on it unless you can show that it is credible.

Finally, for the duality of Jesus in the NT, that is not surprising, and really means nothing of an earthly Jesus. The reason is quite simple. The books of the NT were written quite some time after Jesus. During that time, we see the duality of Jesus evolve. Looking from Paul, who say Jesus become the Son of God because of the resurrection, to John who believed Jesus had always been, and thus was always divine, show that quite clearly.

Since we know then that the idea of Jesus' dual nature evolved, it is no surprise then that all of the writers of the NT believed Jesus to have a dual nature, even if that was not the first case. More so, people believing one thing, and proving that thing, are very different.

 

[fallingblood]

continued from above:

　
I think that my belief has been influenced by what Paul wrote, but that your belief disables you from understanding what he has plainly written.
And as to Paul's Jewish roots, I don't think he ever left them even when he was cast out.
I think that you have allowed later Rabbinical Judaism to over influence your thinking on the NT, OT as well for that matter.

I've repeated very little of later Rabbinical Jewish thought. I'm looking at the OT, other Jewish records written between the time of the OT and the NT, and what the NT says. That is where my understanding comes from. That and actually reading what these sources said. I don't interpret them to fit my preconceived notions, as I have little benefit from doing so. I'm not looking at these records as scripture to prove or disprove, I look at them to see what we can actually know.

　
unique, only-begotten, only, one and only, his only born - all from the page you cited and all in support of what I have said.
There is no suggestion anywhere there or elsewhere, that I am aware of, that would undermine the sense of Jesus' uniqueness in either his parentage from God or the duality of the unique dual nature thereby imparted.
He was/is one-of-a-kind.

You are taking later translations. The page also gave a literal translation of the Greek. And it is that translation that the best translations are using today. Yes, later translations translated it in different ways, but that really is besides the point.

Also, you said that Adam was the son of God. So Jesus could not be the only son of God by what you said.

　
Irenaeus was reading from the manuscript before him.
That was clearly a different manuscript to the one that has come down to us and was prior to our earliest version.
He could not be wrong, his manuscript may have been; are you arguing that the prior manuscript with fewer words is less reliable than a later manuscript with more words?

How do you know what manuscript Irenaeus was using? And how can you say that later manuscripts are now wrong because Irenaeus says something else? Simply, that is not very logical, especially considering the work of textual criticism that has been going for quite some time now.

The best manuscripts we have now, show beyond a doubt, that the genealogy stated that it was through Joseph. Historical research shows that is the most likely original idea. The simple reason that in order to show a descent from David, as in to show a Messianic descent, it had to go through the father (even if it was an adoptive father). To go through the mother was illogical, and would have shown nothing at all sense descent did not go through the mother. So there is no reason to assume the original ever put the genealogy to Mary.

By going through Mary, it proves nothing. It would discredit Jesus being a descendent of David. And since historically, we would expect a genealogy going through the supposed father, and since we see that to be the case in our best manuscripts, there is no reason then to assume anything else.

Also, can you show where Irenaeus supposes that the genealogy in Luke is from Mary? I can only trace the idea of the genealogy of Luke being from Mary to John of Damascus, and he lived quite some time after Irenaeus. Over 400 years later actually.

　
Our later manuscripts of Luke have Joseph son of Heli, Irenaeus' had Mary daughter of Heli, or words to that effect.
There must be debate, there is evidence on both sides of the question.
I think that the weight of evidence is for Irenaeus' reading.

There is no evidence that Irenaeus had a copy of the Gospel that said Mary was the daughter of Heli. The main argument for Luke having the genealogy of Mary is basically that they ignore the statement regrading Joseph, and then assume Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Not a very good argument as it completely ignores what is right in front of them.

And really, there is no debate on this subject. Very few subscribe to the idea of Luke having a genealogy through Mary.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, it is not absolutely impossible, but it is extremely improbable, to the point in which we can rule it out.

Well. Baha'i Scriptures also confirm that Jesus didn't have a biological father. Baha’u’llah forbade blind faith and instead encouraged investigation of truth and He revealed a Book called "the Book certitude" in which He gives logical arguments that proves Baha'u'llah is the Promised One who was mentioned in older scriptures of other prophets.
So, for me, I have no doubt that Jesus didn't have a biological father. and this certitude relies on Baha'u'llah. But belief in Baha'u'llah is based on the proofs that He gave in His Books. and I believe most people who read Book of Certitude carefully and understand it, would believe in Baha’u’llah.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

what 6+ billion people on the planet right now.

one thing every last one of them has in common is it took a male and female to create a child.

There can always be exceptions.

 

[fallingblood]

Well. Baha'i Scriptures also confirm that Jesus didn't have a biological father. Baha’u’llah forbade blind faith and instead encouraged investigation of truth and He revealed a Book called "the Book certitude" in which He gives logical arguments that proves Baha'u'llah is the Promised One who was mentioned in older scriptures of other prophets.
So, for me, I have no doubt that Jesus didn't have a biological father. and this certitude relies on Baha'u'llah. But belief in Baha'u'llah is based on the proofs that He gave in His Books. and I believe most people who read Book of Certitude carefully and understand it, would believe in Baha’u’llah.

I could make an argument that I am the promised one by manipulating scripture. Now, if you have faith in your religion, that is fine. However, history suggests otherwise.

 

[fallingblood]

There can always be exceptions.

Yes, there could be exceptions. However, history can not show that a miracle occurred.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, there could be exceptions. However, history can not show that a miracle occurred.

I don't believe that any of the prophets ever did any Miracle as a proof of their prophethood. I do believe that they had power though. But Mirracles may only be good only for people who witness them. Even then, people can argue it was majic.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't believe that any of the prophets ever did any Miracle as a proof of their prophethood. I do believe that they had power though. But Mirracles may only be good only for people who witness them. Even then, people can argue it was majic.

A virgin birth would be a miracle.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I'm placing the NT into a context that it fits. I'm placing Jesus into his context. I don't give priority to the OT, or pagan traditions (I don't think I have even really supported any pagan traditions). I discount some Christian tradition as it disagrees with what we know about Judaism in the 1st century. And yes, I know that much of the Church tradition was created after Jesus.
　Yours isn't the simplest solution. The simplest solution is that there is a contradiction. And really, it is as simple as that. Luke and Matthew both tell us exactly who the genealogy goes through; Joseph. There really should be no debate here and Luke makes it clear.

And looking at Matthew's genealogy, it isn't correct anyway. All you have to do is compare it to the Old Testament to see that it has some major discrepancies.
Complete assumption based on nothing at all. Also, you just admitted that there was more than one son of God. So Jesus can't be the only, as you've just stated.

There is no reason to assume that the genealogy in Luke is from Mary, especially since it states exactly the opposite.
　 Yes, Irenaeus read what was before him. And he either read it wrong, or manipulated it to fit his own idea.

It is as simple as that. As for what manuscript Irenaeus was using? We can't say. He could have been using a very flawed manuscripts, and we in fact know that the first copies were the most flawed. Later copies were done by professionals. The first copies, for the most part, were done by anyone who could read and write, hardly professional at all.

And again, you are relying on church tradition, and unfounded assumptions.
　 Again, unfounded assumption. As far as we know, the people Paul was preaching to hard just recently heard about the message of Jesus. And the Gospel is very different than the Gospels we have. More so, not all of them would have been well-versed in scripture, or even educated. In fact, we can safely assume most of them were uneducated by simple statistics.

You need something more than unfounded assumptions to convince me.
　 You do rely on tradition. Relying on Irenaeus is relying on tradition. And your facts are not facts, they are assumptions. You can't point to the text Irenaeus was using. You can't say whether it was better or not. You can say very little about it.
　I never said that Paul never met with the Apostles. I accept that he met with at least Peter and John, and probably others. However, this has nothing to do with the Gospel writers.
　 Spirit of holiness does not mean God. You haven't shown how Paul says that it was a miraculous birth, or one that was not completely normal. You have never shown that Paul thought Mary was a virgin, or that God was the father. You are reading something that is not there. Repeating it over and over again does not make your opinion right. You must show some evidence.
　 You assume way to much, and you take Paul out of his Jewish background. You need to understand what the term Son of God meant during that time to make any sense of what Paul is saying.

Also, there is no requirement of virginity in the OT. The one verse used in Isaiah mentions a young woman, not a virgin. You have shown nothing except that you can make wild assumptions based on ignorance.
　 Assumptions based on your faith. That is all you're doing here.
There is no reason to assume Paul knew of the idea of a virgin birth, or subscribe to it. He makes no suggestion. To assume that he does relies on faith.

In order to get Paul to suggest something about a virgin birth, you first have to have knowledge that the virgin birth was an idea that later originated. You then have to take that idea and place it into Paul, even though Paul never said anything about that.

It is fine if you have faith. However faith does not equal facts. There is a major difference.

Rabbinical Judaism is not the context of 1st century Judea but much of the things you assert is clearly echoing the Rabbis, much of the rest the higher critics.
　
The simplest solution is that there is no contradiction, at that point all arguments cease.
With the contradiction intact the arguments multiply and can only be fuelled by speculations; you need to imagine deceptive intent, an adoption, a step-parentage, a Levirate marriage and any number of other devices just to arrive at the next contradiction.
There comes a time when Occam's razor must be applied, or else you'll be arguing into the next millenium.
And accepting Luke's genealogy to be of Mary fits the context of Luke, gives a legitimate descent of Kingship, accords with the NT view of Jesus' dual nature and opens up realms of understanding throughout the OT and NT.
It does destroy the idea of an 'immaculate conception' and, to my thinking, that may have been the cause of the original alteration.
My suspicion and distrust is directed more towards the later church than the early.
　
I don't think that Matthew's genealogy was ever meant to be seen as being 'correct' in the sense of being exacting and exhaustive.
It clearly skips a few generations here and there and is arranged (as a series of doubled 7s) in an esoteric manner whose scheme I cannot fathom, and for which I have come across no satisfying explanation.
And although it demonstrates nobility it also precludes the descent of kingship through that line by reason of including Jeconiah.
Kingship can only descend to Jesus through the line of Luke's genealogy and only through his mother's blood.
There's another reason for it being Mary's genealogy in Luke.
　
Hang on, you said 'Jewish customs shows us beyond a doubt' all I did was show that Jewish custom does leave room for doubt.
It contains good reasons for a woman to be in possession of her genealogy and for that genealogy to be significant.
As to Mary having sentimental reasons for preserving her genealogy, it is certainly within the realms of possibility.
You made an absolute and exclusive statement that did not allow for all possibilities, I raised one of those possibilities and you round on me for making 'unfounded assumptions'.
Crap I say to that, my suggestion is better founded than your pedantic assertion.
　
I have already, and repeatedly, drawn the connection between Jesus and Adam as being both sons of God in particular and similar ways.
Luke's genealogy supports what I have said earlier on the relationship,
And there are many, and good, reasons to read Luke's genealogy to be of Mary, but for some reason you haven't heard even one of them.
You are absolute, I speak 'based on nothing at all'.