The virgin birth story.

[dmgdnooc]

cont.
Now your slandering Irenaeus!
What manuscript should, in the normal course of scholarship, have preeminence?
Please answer the question.
　
'the people Paul was preaching to had just recently heard the message of Jesus'
Read Romans 16, the list of persons to whom Paul sent commendations proves your assertion to be from ignorance.
The Roman church was educated and sophisticated and well and long versed in the Gospel (not the Gospels) and in the Scripture.
They would have understood Paul's reasoning.
They would have at least read the whole epistle before commenting.
　
The contents, or parts thereof, from many ancient works have come down to us via the medium of quotes made by other authors.
It is a well established scholarly method that has reproduced several lost works.
The hypothesised existence of Q and the reconstruction of its content relies on the method.
I don't have to point to the manuscript to prove that it existed, its existence is proved by Irenaeus quoting from it.
　
My point is that I said 'Paul met with the Apostles' to which you replied 'Paul never met with the Gospel writers' and upbraded me for relying on 'tradition'.
Just what were you on about then?
　
It has got nothing to do with whether or not the Gospel writers were Apostles.
My point was that the assumption you were pushing, that Paul was in isolation from the teachings of the Apostles, was a misfit with the facts.
　
'Spirit of holiness' refers to the divine aspect of Jesus' nature.
The duality of Jesus' nature is a major feature of the NT, but you have missed it.
Peter's exclamation the 'Thou art the Son of God' is said, by Jesus, to be the foundation statement of his church.
The declaration signals the beginning of the new things (the departure from Jewish traditions) revealed in Christ.
It is a well established tenet of the Bible that 'spirit begets spirit and flesh begets flesh' as John epitomises it.
For Jesus to have had the dual nature described by the NT then God must have begotten Jesus' spiritual nature, or else his nature would have been wholly of flesh and said to be just that.
　
I do understand what the term 'Son of God' meant and means.
And when Paul uses it of Jesus he does not mean it in the sense of a righteous man.
He means it in the sense that God is Jesus' male parent in a unique way that is similar to God's parentage of Adam.
And that Jesus bore that aspect of divinity in himself and it imparted to him a dual nature.
The NT is unanimous on the point.
　
Denying the clear and obvious and dismissing all evidence contrary to your prejudice does not support the aura of 'scholarship' you seek to project.
　
You will not make any sense of Christianity, or its Scriptures, if you continue to peer at them through Rabbinical lenses.
You end up saying things like, Paul can't be saying what he is saying because Jews don't say that. He must be saying something else or, most probably, he is saying nothing in a long disconnected series of rants.
What makes you think that Paul, and the other NT writers, mean the same thing by 'Son of God' as Gamaliel would have?
　
Understanding the requirement of virginity from the OT is not something that I have thought long about.
Maybe if we have this conversation again in a year or two I will be able to attempt an explanation.
You can see that all I have so far is an incomplete set of subject headings; they are not 'based on ignorance' but are ideas lifted directly form the pages of the OT.
If you had even a cursory understanding of the headings then you would see that they all point in the same direction.
There is no basis for saying 'there is no requirement of virginity in the OT' I have listed a set of strong indicators of a requirement, ones which you clearly do not understand.
　
I don't expect you to accept the evidence of Paul's extended arguments and layered meaning, you don't have the spiritual equipment for it; and it hasn't been written down by a higher critic, its just in the NT.
But you should be able to acknowledge that the flow of Pual's reasoning connect this idea with that and that with another even if you do not click as to why he connects them.
And I don't assume it to be there, as a matter of faith, I have read it and can reason for myself what it is saying, why it is there and how it got there.
Seems to me that you are the one arguing from faith.
Faith in higher criticism that requires you to shut tight your eyes, shake your head and stamp your feet at anything that naysays the Bishops and Worthies of your faith.
A faith that insists on the absolute negation of anything that opposes it.
　
A faith that demands that the idea of a virgin birth is a late addition to the NT and any evidence or reasoning to the contrary will be denied.
So what is the reasoning for a late addition?
　

 

[Vendetta]

To start off, I'm asking this in regards to an assignment I have for a class. I have to write a paper discussing the virgin birth stories as described in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.

Basically, I just want additional views on this. Anything interesting that someone can point out would be great. Or any books on the subject would be helpful. I just want to have a very thorough cover of this subject.

Any debate on the subject would be great as well. I have a few weeks to actually write this paper. So in that course, I will be adding what I hope will spark debate as well. Thanks for any help.

Good luck on your assignment......I am sure you'll find some interesting responses here. Anytime a 14 year-old girl gives birth its a miracle.

 

[dmgdnooc]

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

As I showed, your interpretation of Psalm 2 is at odds with the concensus of both the Jewish and Christian understandings.
Quite simply you are wrong and unable to admit it.
The passage in Matthew has no bearing on the way you read Psalm 2, to bring it up in this context appears to be made of straw.
You were not 'simply providing evidence for the claim'.
We have discussed the verse from Matthew and you are well aware of my thoughts on its fittingness, if you were simply providing evidence for your slander against the NT writers you would have referred to another verse.
　
You have missed the duality of Jesus' nature and the duality of the Messiahship, both clearly and repeatedly described throughout the NT.
Your thinking seems to be dominated by the idea that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Rabbinical Judaism gone astray and do not recognise that the NT describes the beginning of a new creation, a new order of things in Christ.
Peter recognised this in his exlamation that 'Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God' and the whole NT is illuminated by the thought.
How can you miss such obvious features writ so large and remain confident in your ability to read with comprehension?
　
The idea of a 'suffering servant' is well established in both Jewish and Christian thought.
The Jewish view is that the 'servant' is the nation of Israel, the Christian that it is Jesus in his first advent.
You are demanding that the Apostles must have continued to think like the Priests and Rabbis even though they accepted Jesus in the way the NT describes.
That makes no sense to me.
　
You dismissed Irenaeus, and all the Early Church Fathers, with general all-encompassing slathers asserting that they 'dealt in apologetics', 'aren't basing there information on facts', 'Christians don't agree with everything they wrote anymore' and added later that the traditions they record are invalid because they came after the Gospels.
Several particular slanders have been directed at Irenaeus ranging from his inability to read wrods on a page to his reading being motivated by a deliberate deception. In fact the criticisms of Irenaeus, that I recall, have all been ad homs.
So you did dismiss them and you dismissed them with venomous ad homs and unsupported assertions there is little in the dismissals by way of being explanatory.
　
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.
　
Mistaking my meaning is not dishonest, failing to reproduce the full quote and then upbrading me appears dishonest.
And you still don't provide the reference to Enoch.
　
I do not mean to discredit the work you have done.
I merely point out that, imo, the weight of reading should be in the Bible and not in books of opinions about the Bible.
That is, if the aim of the study is to find out for one's self what the Bible says on this or that subject.
Everyone has a bias and barrow to push when it comes to the Bible.
The Bible would say that is because of the enmity and how it works in each individual.
　
A virgin birth is essential to believing that Jesus had a dual nature.
I've said this elsewhere but will say it again in a different manner.
A person with 2 human parents will have a single human nature because 'flesh begets flesh' it is only the Spirit that can beget Spirit.
So for Jesus to have had a dual nature, as described in the NT, his male parent must have been God.
Jesus inherited the duality of his nature because of his parent's differing natures, the human and the divine.
That is the only explanation allowed by scripture for the duality of Jesus' nature in the days of his flesh.
And that he must therefore have been born of a virgin requires a sensitivity and breadth of understanding that will encompass many ideas relating to God, man, cleanliness and purity from the OT.
The proof of both the duality and the virgin birth is declared in the resurrection from the dead.
　
Yes it is no surprise that 'all the writers of the NT believed Jesus to have a dual nature' what is surprising is that it is not generally recognised that the two things (duality and virgin birth) are aspects of the same belief.
The belief that God is Jesus' Father.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

You are saying that, just because someone can fake it, therefore true prophets have never existed. This is like saying, just because there can be fake gold, then true gold doesn't exist.

Well, That's why independent investigation of truth is encouraged in Baha'i Faith to distinguish between the truth and false.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

A virgin birth would be a miracle.

No, It's not a miracle in a sense to prove that Jesus was the truth. Because, no one could have verified or seen if that happend. neither this Mirracle was perfomed by Jesus to prove Himself to people.
This is just how Jesus was created by God. The point is, God can create someone without father if He wishes to do so. Just as He brought human into existance on earth (whether at once or gradually through evolution).
Offcourse this argument is based on belief in God. However no one can prove God does not exist just in the same way that no one can prove God exists. Since no one can prove God does not exist, therefore no one can prove that the virgin birth did not happen.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Not really. Especially since a lot of what I've said would disagree with Rabbinical Judaism.

　
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.

No, the simplest solution is that there is a contradiction. Because in order to get to the idea that there is no conclusion, you have to ignore what the Gospels say. It is simple for the reason that both Matthew and Luke neither had an actual genealogy. So they created them for their theological purposes. It is very simple.

And no, Mary does not give a legitimate descent to Kingship. She gives no descent to a Kingship as the Kingship went through the father. And really, Joseph being an adoptive father would be logical if he stayed with Mary.

Finally, the Gospel says it is a genealogy of Joseph. To get around that, you have to create a whole new story, and say that the Gospel is incorrect. I see no reason to say that.

　
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.

The 3 sets of 14 in Matthew were created for a theological purpose. There are 14 years from the father of the Jews, to the Greatest King. 14 years between the greatest king, and the greatest catastrophe. And 14 years between the greatest catastrophe, to the chosen Messiah. That is a theological statement that Matthew was trying to create. So he made up a lot of it.

More so though, Kingship can not go through the mother's line. It is an impossibility because that is not how descent was seen in first century Judaism. Descent of kingship had to go through the fathers side. Which is why both Matthew and Luke put it through the fathers side. It is as simple as that.

　
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.

There is no good reason to trace a genealogy through the mother. You didn't show that was part of the Jewish custom. Your assertion is completely unfounded. Especially since Luke states that the genealogy states that it goes through Joseph (I don't see why there is an argument when Luke makes it so clear).

To go through the mother would be illogical, and proves nothing. That is extremely simple.

　
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'.

There is no good reason to read Luke's genealogy as that of Mary. In order to do so, you have to ignore what Luke states, that the genealogy goes through Joseph. Luke states that the genealogy goes through Joseph. It is that simple. Your argument thus argues against what is written in Luke.

Again, there is no reason to assume that your idea is correct, simply because it disagrees with what we read in Luke. And there is no logical reason to trace a descent through Mary as a descent from a woman could not qualify Jesus as the king. That had to go through the father. It is really simple.

 

[fallingblood]

You are saying that, just because someone can fake it, therefore true prophets have never existed. This is like saying, just because there can be fake gold, then true gold doesn't exist.

Well, That's why independent investigation of truth is encouraged in Baha'i Faith to distinguish between the truth and false.

I say that because to prove that someone can talk to God would have to show that God exists, a task that is impossible.

 

[fallingblood]

No, It's not a miracle in a sense to prove that Jesus was the truth. Because, no one could have verified or seen if that happend. neither this Mirracle was perfomed by Jesus to prove Himself to people.
This is just how Jesus was created by God. The point is, God can create someone without father if He wishes to do so. Just as He brought human into existance on earth (whether at once or gradually through evolution).
Offcourse this argument is based on belief in God. However no one can prove God does not exist just in the same way that no one can prove God exists. Since no one can prove God does not exist, therefore no one can prove that the virgin birth did not happen.

It is a miracle by the definition of the word.

And what you are saying relies on God, a being you can't prove exists anyway, and there is no evidence for. So your argument is not based on facts, but faith.

 

[fallingblood]

cont.
Now your slandering Irenaeus!
What manuscript should, in the normal course of scholarship, have preeminence?
Please answer the question.

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.

　
'the people Paul was preaching to had just recently heard the message of Jesus'
Read Romans 16, the list of persons to whom Paul sent commendations proves your assertion to be from ignorance.
The Roman church was educated and sophisticated and well and long versed in the Gospel (not the Gospels) and in the Scripture.
They would have understood Paul's reasoning.
They would have at least read the whole epistle before commenting.

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.

　
The contents, or parts thereof, from many ancient works have come down to us via the medium of quotes made by other authors.
It is a well established scholarly method that has reproduced several lost works.
The hypothesised existence of Q and the reconstruction of its content relies on the method.
I don't have to point to the manuscript to prove that it existed, its existence is proved by Irenaeus quoting from it.

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.

　
My point is that I said 'Paul met with the Apostles' to which you replied 'Paul never met with the Gospel writers' and upbraded me for relying on 'tradition'.
Just what were you on about then?

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.

　
It has got nothing to do with whether or not the Gospel writers were Apostles.
My point was that the assumption you were pushing, that Paul was in isolation from the teachings of the Apostles, was a misfit with the facts.

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.

　
'Spirit of holiness' refers to the divine aspect of Jesus' nature.
The duality of Jesus' nature is a major feature of the NT, but you have missed it.
Peter's exclamation the 'Thou art the Son of God' is said, by Jesus, to be the foundation statement of his church.
The declaration signals the beginning of the new things (the departure from Jewish traditions) revealed in Christ.
It is a well established tenet of the Bible that 'spirit begets spirit and flesh begets flesh' as John epitomises it.
For Jesus to have had the dual nature described by the NT then God must have begotten Jesus' spiritual nature, or else his nature would have been wholly of flesh and said to be just that.

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.

　
I do understand what the term 'Son of God' meant and means.
And when Paul uses it of Jesus he does not mean it in the sense of a righteous man.
He means it in the sense that God is Jesus' male parent in a unique way that is similar to God's parentage of Adam.
And that Jesus bore that aspect of divinity in himself and it imparted to him a dual nature.
The NT is unanimous on the point.

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.

　
Denying the clear and obvious and dismissing all evidence contrary to your prejudice does not support the aura of 'scholarship' you seek to project.

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.

　
You will not make any sense of Christianity, or its Scriptures, if you continue to peer at them through Rabbinical lenses.
You end up saying things like, Paul can't be saying what he is saying because Jews don't say that. He must be saying something else or, most probably, he is saying nothing in a long disconnected series of rants.
What makes you think that Paul, and the other NT writers, mean the same thing by 'Son of God' as Gamaliel would have?

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.

　
Understanding the requirement of virginity from the OT is not something that I have thought long about.
Maybe if we have this conversation again in a year or two I will be able to attempt an explanation.
You can see that all I have so far is an incomplete set of subject headings; they are not 'based on ignorance' but are ideas lifted directly form the pages of the OT.
If you had even a cursory understanding of the headings then you would see that they all point in the same direction.
There is no basis for saying 'there is no requirement of virginity in the OT' I have listed a set of strong indicators of a requirement, ones which you clearly do not understand.

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.

　
I don't expect you to accept the evidence of Paul's extended arguments and layered meaning, you don't have the spiritual equipment for it; and it hasn't been written down by a higher critic, its just in the NT.
But you should be able to acknowledge that the flow of Pual's reasoning connect this idea with that and that with another even if you do not click as to why he connects them.
And I don't assume it to be there, as a matter of faith, I have read it and can reason for myself what it is saying, why it is there and how it got there.
Seems to me that you are the one arguing from faith.
Faith in higher criticism that requires you to shut tight your eyes, shake your head and stamp your feet at anything that naysays the Bishops and Worthies of your faith.
A faith that insists on the absolute negation of anything that opposes it.

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.

　
A faith that demands that the idea of a virgin birth is a late addition to the NT and any evidence or reasoning to the contrary will be denied.
So what is the reasoning for a late addition?
　

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.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I say that because to prove that someone can talk to God would have to show that God exists, a task that is impossible.

It's not about someone can talk to God! It's about God who talked with someone! and God is fully capable of doing that and He doesn't have to prove anything to anybody! Simple as that.

 

[fallingblood]

As I showed, your interpretation of Psalm 2 is at odds with the concensus of both the Jewish and Christian understandings.
Quite simply you are wrong and unable to admit it.
The passage in Matthew has no bearing on the way you read Psalm 2, to bring it up in this context appears to be made of straw.
You were not 'simply providing evidence for the claim'.
We have discussed the verse from Matthew and you are well aware of my thoughts on its fittingness, if you were simply providing evidence for your slander against the NT writers you would have referred to another verse.

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 missed the duality of Jesus' nature and the duality of the Messiahship, both clearly and repeatedly described throughout the NT.
Your thinking seems to be dominated by the idea that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Rabbinical Judaism gone astray and do not recognise that the NT describes the beginning of a new creation, a new order of things in Christ.
Peter recognised this in his exlamation that 'Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God' and the whole NT is illuminated by the thought.
How can you miss such obvious features writ so large and remain confident in your ability to read with comprehension?

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.

　
The idea of a 'suffering servant' is well established in both Jewish and Christian thought.
The Jewish view is that the 'servant' is the nation of Israel, the Christian that it is Jesus in his first advent.
You are demanding that the Apostles must have continued to think like the Priests and Rabbis even though they accepted Jesus in the way the NT describes.
That makes no sense to me.

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.

　
You dismissed Irenaeus, and all the Early Church Fathers, with general all-encompassing slathers asserting that they 'dealt in apologetics', 'aren't basing there information on facts', 'Christians don't agree with everything they wrote anymore' and added later that the traditions they record are invalid because they came after the Gospels.
Several particular slanders have been directed at Irenaeus ranging from his inability to read wrods on a page to his reading being motivated by a deliberate deception. In fact the criticisms of Irenaeus, that I recall, have all been ad homs.
So you did dismiss them and you dismissed them with venomous ad homs and unsupported assertions there is little in the dismissals by way of being explanatory.

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.

　
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.

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.

　
A virgin birth is essential to believing that Jesus had a dual nature.
I've said this elsewhere but will say it again in a different manner.
A person with 2 human parents will have a single human nature because 'flesh begets flesh' it is only the Spirit that can beget Spirit.
So for Jesus to have had a dual nature, as described in the NT, his male parent must have been God.
Jesus inherited the duality of his nature because of his parent's differing natures, the human and the divine.
That is the only explanation allowed by scripture for the duality of Jesus' nature in the days of his flesh.
And that he must therefore have been born of a virgin requires a sensitivity and breadth of understanding that will encompass many ideas relating to God, man, cleanliness and purity from the OT.
The proof of both the duality and the virgin birth is declared in the resurrection from the dead.

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.

　
Yes it is no surprise that 'all the writers of the NT believed Jesus to have a dual nature' what is surprising is that it is not generally recognised that the two things (duality and virgin birth) are aspects of the same belief.
The belief that God is Jesus' Father.

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.

 

[fallingblood]

It's not about someone can talk to God! It's about God who talked with someone! and God is fully capable of doing that and He doesn't have to prove anything to anybody! Simple as that.

I agree. It is as simple as that. However, that is still based on the idea that God exists. If you can't prove that God exists, then it is based on faith.

 

[dmgdnooc]

continued from above:

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.
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.
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.

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.

Your thinking on this matter is influenced, to my mind, by Rabbinical Judaism and by the higher critcs more than it is by what is said in the NT.
And your reading of the NT appears to be cursory at best, you have missed the weight attached by it to the manner of Jesus' sonship, the dual nature of Jesus, the dual advents of the Messiahship etc.
You appear to be aware of only a set of contrary arguments for the things that the NT says and seem unable to reason as to why the NT says the things that it does.
It is as if you had been opened to the ideas via a contrary Rabbinical or higher critical analysis rather than through the medium of the NT itself and through your own understanding.
　
I agree, I think that seeking to 'prove or disporve' the scripture is following after a chimera, and I have stalked that beast myself, all that can be known is nothing or Christ risen - I speak from experience - and Christ risen answers all.
But, bonne chance, mon ami, in your quest; may you be brought to a resolution; may you come to the full assurance of knowledge.
　
I quoted a valid selection of the translations from the page you cited, there was not much variety available, all the translations are in agreement as to the unique status of Jesus' sonship.
The literal translation that you appeal to is no different, it also features the unqueness of Jesus' sonship.
　
Luke's genealogy makes the point that Adam was also the 'son of God'.
Any attempt to argue against the uniqueness of Adam's sonship must also fall flat.
But although Jesus and Adam are both called 'sons of God' by the NT, by reason of them sharing miraculous origins, Paul makes it clear that Jesus has the preeminence - Adam being the 'figure of him who was to come'.
　
Irenaeus says that he was reading from Luke.
It is you who have said that the earlier manuscript is wrong.
I think that, most probably, later manuscripts were ammended to suit the idea of an 'immaculate conception'.
The MO of textual criticism gives more authority to earlier manuscripts that contain fewer words.
But you insist that a later manuscript with more words that also produces a contradiction has greater authority.
You have departed, here, from the normal tenets of sound scholarship, but you are running with the pack.
　
Even 'the best manuscripts' cannot 'show beyond a doubt' that Luke's genealogy is of Joseph.
There will always be doubt as long as the contradiction and the reference in Irenaeus remain.
I'll just say here that your continued use of absolute statements does not reflect the careful uncertainty of sound scholarship.
　
What historical research shows that Luke recounts Joseph's genealogy?
An unending series of imaginings and speculative reasonings that produce more contradictions than they resove is all I have ever encountered.
As you reproduce.
　
Jesus' descent from David can not be shown to be through Joseph, both genealogies make it clear that Joseph is not Jesus' father.
Both are clear tha Jesus' father is God by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus' mother was his only link, via the flesh, to the line of David; illogical, paradoxical, that is how the matter is presented.
And it should be remembered that God, Yahweh the Elohim of Israel, is not obliged to conform with traditional Jewish usage; even in the matter of descent from David.
Now if descent through Mary showed nothing to the Jews, that is fine because the NT writers were not writing to, or for, the Jews.
Your assumption supposes that the NT writers were under some obligation to conform with the authority of Jewish usage, and that is a false assumption.
They had already been rejected by and were under persecution from the Jewish authorities.
Each of the Gospels has, therfore, a Gentile orientation.
　
'going through Mary .... proves nothing, it would discredit Jesus' being a descendent of David'
This may be the point that shows your lack of critical focus.
Jesus' resurrection proved his Messiahhip, that he was 'the son of David', the genealogy is not there to prove anything that had not already been proven.
You have the events and the ideas out of chronological sequence and imagine, thereby, that the genealogy must be there to prove descent through David to a Jewish readership.
That is not the case.
　
Jesus' sonship. of God, is universally recognised in the NT and the fullness of the idea seems to have been first enunciated by Peter in his exclamation the 'Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God'.
The statement is the rock upon which Christianity is built.
And from that rock flow the twin ideas of a duality of Jesus' nature and a virgin birth.
There was no benefit to be had in recounting anything about the duality of Jesus' nature or the virgin birth to anyone who did not accept the first premise, his 'sonship'.
And the Jewish authorities had rejected his sonship.
　
Now, there is no further point in trying to convince someone of 'thus because of so' if they reject the 'so', the resurrection (in this case the 'so') that proved Jesus' sonship.
So the Gospel was opened to and became focussed on the Gentiles.
And the Gospels were written reflecting that 'fact on the ground' in the development of the Christian religion.
So they had no need to convince or conform to Jewish sensibilities of the niceties of traditional descent.
They were free to present the facts of the descent, warts and all, paradoxical as they are.
　
So, if you can see it, the descent through David is of secondary importance in Luke's genealogy; God could raise up children to David from stones or clay pits if He so chose; it is the descent from Adam that is important to Luke and the mirroring of son of God with son of God that is the principal feature of the genealogy.
　
This is the page that I earlier referred you to for my comments on Irenaeus.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
　
The evidence is that Irenaeus refers to the manuscript and its contents.
'the daughter of Heli, or words to that effect', 72 rather than 77, as I said.
I think that hypothesising a lacuna in Luke is an excellent suggestion, for reasons I have stated (and for more).
The way, so it seems, that manuscripts develop is that they acquire words over the years.
Hence older manuscripts, nearer the source, have fewer words is a general rule.
A rule that supports the hypothesis.
　
I think that the political situation inhibits debate on the subject.
The hypothesis destroys the, long held and firmly established, doctrine of the immaculate conception.
　

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If you can't prove that God exists, then it is based on faith.

That's true. I would say it in this way: If someone believes in God and His prophets without any logical proof, then that faith is blind faith.
but if someone believes in God and His prophets based on logic and proofs that are given then that faith is based on logic and reason.

Now, during search and investigation in the proofs that are given by prophets, someone may find convincing and logical evidence. In this case that faith is based on logic and reasoning.
But someone else may not have found logic and reasoning to believe.

 

[newhope101]

I agree. It is as simple as that. However, that is still based on the idea that God exists. If you can't prove that God exists, then it is based on faith.

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

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.

The validity of the bible in my mind rests on the fact that of all the spiritual writings the bible constructed by many writers where not one of them takes glory for themselves. When people make up stories or have their dreams about this sort of thing it generally entwines self glory eg buddah, Muhummad are writers that took glory for themselves. Both lived in shameless luxury. Such alledgers of special devine favour take glory for themselves as part of the delusion. The disciples did not take Glory for themselves and nor did Jesus, nor did the old testament writers. In fact the one time Moses did he was admonished and did not get to see the promised land. That is what God thinks of those that glorify themselves.

Jesus always told people, Jews and non Jews to pray to his father in heaven who has power. The Pope also lives in shameless luxury, declares self omnipotence, while thousands starve outside his palacial walls. I believe these people do not represent God. The bible and its writers stands apart from other scriptural writings for these reasons, regardless of all the intellectualisation and rhetoric about who wrote what and when.

In a day of IVF a virgin birth is very possible.

If one believes is a powerfull biblical God that created radar in bats, I am sure artificial insemination, by a science unknown to mankind, is not out of His league.

The Jews did not accept Jesus as a Messiah because he firstly admonished the Saducees and Pharasies for the hypocrites they were at the time. Secondly he wasn't what they expected. Jesus came from an average family and did not save the nation as was expected, as a hero.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Not really. Especially since a lot of what I've said would disagree with Rabbinical Judaism.
No, the simplest solution is that there is a contradiction. Because in order to get to the idea that there is no conclusion, you have to ignore what the Gospels say. It is simple for the reason that both Matthew and Luke neither had an actual genealogy. So they created them for their theological purposes. It is very simple.

And no, Mary does not give a legitimate descent to Kingship. She gives no descent to a Kingship as the Kingship went through the father. And really, Joseph being an adoptive father would be logical if he stayed with Mary.

Finally, the Gospel says it is a genealogy of Joseph. To get around that, you have to create a whole new story, and say that the Gospel is incorrect. I see no reason to say that.
The 3 sets of 14 in Matthew were created for a theological purpose. There are 14 years from the father of the Jews, to the Greatest King. 14 years between the greatest king, and the greatest catastrophe. And 14 years between the greatest catastrophe, to the chosen Messiah. That is a theological statement that Matthew was trying to create. So he made up a lot of it.

More so though, Kingship can not go through the mother's line. It is an impossibility because that is not how descent was seen in first century Judaism. Descent of kingship had to go through the fathers side. Which is why both Matthew and Luke put it through the fathers side. It is as simple as that.
There is no good reason to trace a genealogy through the mother. You didn't show that was part of the Jewish custom. Your assertion is completely unfounded. Especially since Luke states that the genealogy states that it goes through Joseph (I don't see why there is an argument when Luke makes it so clear).

To go through the mother would be illogical, and proves nothing. That is extremely simple.
There is no good reason to read Luke's genealogy as that of Mary. In order to do so, you have to ignore what Luke states, that the genealogy goes through Joseph. Luke states that the genealogy goes through Joseph. It is that simple. Your argument thus argues against what is written in Luke.

Again, there is no reason to assume that your idea is correct, simply because it disagrees with what we read in Luke. And there is no logical reason to trace a descent through Mary as a descent from a woman could not qualify Jesus as the king. That had to go through the father. It is really simple.

Seems to me that much of what you say that disagrees with Rabbinical Judaism agrees with higher criticism and there is not much room left for the NT.
　
So, you think that 'the simplest solution is that there is a contradiction'.
You suppose that the 'simplest solution' is that one, or more, of the Gospel writers was a charlatan.
And then you reason on unsupported historical grounds that the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke were inserted much later.
So what are your historical grounds for this assertion?
　
The imagined adoptive parentage of Joseph is a furphy; Joseph's descent was through Jeconiah, see Matthew, which excluded his line from the kingship.
And if Matthew's genealogy is to be ascribed to Joseph, and Luke's to Joseph, then contradictions will abound.
　
What theological purpose were Matthew and Luke pursuing, when, why?
　
I do not say that the whole of Luke is 'incorrect' merely that there is, most probably, a lacuna in 3.23 that obscures the original ascription of the genealogy to Mary.
I do not create a 'new story'; my 'story' is, at least, as old as Irenaeus.
　
Your reasong that would have me say that 'the Gospel is incorrect' is falacious, a ridiculous and transparent strawman that is contemptible.
Most especially contemptible when it is considered that this may well be among the very few verses that you insist on in Luke.
What other verses do you insist on in Luke?
　
Yeah, exactly, you have no idea, neither do I, as to why the arrangement of Matthew was made.
Matthew is making an unkown theological statement or the text was ammended later for unknown, esoteric, reasons.
　
God can count descent in any way that He pleases; see the Daughters of Zelophehad.
Only the Rabbis insist on an absolute and unalterable descent through the male line, and you agree with them.
You are trapped in Rabbinical pronouncements on 1st century Judaism, and dismissing the fact that 1st century Judaism had a diversity of thought that the Rabbis destroyed.
　
There are 'good reasons' to trace descent through a woman's line.
I didn't show it, by reference, because you say that you have knowledge of both Jewish custom and the Scriptures; I thought, from your own professions, that you would be aware of the exceptions to the rule.
However, you appear to be unaware of Numbers 27.1 ff. where it is said that the daughters should be considered as their father's heirs; that the portion, in Israel, of their father should descend to them.
There are other OT scriptures of note in this regard also that prove that the matter is not as 'simple' as you, and the Rabbis, portray it.
　
You maintain your absoluteness, 'there are no good reasons to read Luke's genealogy as that of Mary's'.
However, I maintain that there are many 'good' reasons and that the 'good' outweigh the 'bad'.
　
I do not have to 'ignore what Luke states', I merely, on sound grounds, hypothesise a lacuna in one verse.
And thereby am not compelled to discard vast tracts of the Gospel.
Your pedantic reading of the received text requires you to discard those vast tracts in order to retain one verse.
Yeah, right, good move; very Rabbinical, very higher critical.

 

[Tristesse]

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

I don't think he began with the claim "god does not exist." Disbelieving the claim "god exists" doesn't mean that you necessarily except the claim "god doesn't exist."

 

[fallingblood]

Your thinking on this matter is influenced, to my mind, by Rabbinical Judaism and by the higher critcs more than it is by what is said in the NT.
And your reading of the NT appears to be cursory at best, you have missed the weight attached by it to the manner of Jesus' sonship, the dual nature of Jesus, the dual advents of the Messiahship etc.
You appear to be aware of only a set of contrary arguments for the things that the NT says and seem unable to reason as to why the NT says the things that it does.
It is as if you had been opened to the ideas via a contrary Rabbinical or higher critical analysis rather than through the medium of the NT itself and through your own understanding.

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.

　
I agree, I think that seeking to 'prove or disporve' the scripture is following after a chimera, and I have stalked that beast myself, all that can be known is nothing or Christ risen - I speak from experience - and Christ risen answers all.
But, bonne chance, mon ami, in your quest; may you be brought to a resolution; may you come to the full assurance of knowledge.

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 quoted a valid selection of the translations from the page you cited, there was not much variety available, all the translations are in agreement as to the unique status of Jesus' sonship.
The literal translation that you appeal to is no different, it also features the unqueness of Jesus' sonship.

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.

　
Luke's genealogy makes the point that Adam was also the 'son of God'.
Any attempt to argue against the uniqueness of Adam's sonship must also fall flat.
But although Jesus and Adam are both called 'sons of God' by the NT, by reason of them sharing miraculous origins, Paul makes it clear that Jesus has the preeminence - Adam being the 'figure of him who was to come'.

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.

　
Irenaeus says that he was reading from Luke.
It is you who have said that the earlier manuscript is wrong.
I think that, most probably, later manuscripts were ammended to suit the idea of an 'immaculate conception'.
The MO of textual criticism gives more authority to earlier manuscripts that contain fewer words.
But you insist that a later manuscript with more words that also produces a contradiction has greater authority.
You have departed, here, from the normal tenets of sound scholarship, but you are running with the pack.

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.

　
Even 'the best manuscripts' cannot 'show beyond a doubt' that Luke's genealogy is of Joseph.
There will always be doubt as long as the contradiction and the reference in Irenaeus remain.
I'll just say here that your continued use of absolute statements does not reflect the careful uncertainty of sound scholarship.

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.

　
What historical research shows that Luke recounts Joseph's genealogy?
An unending series of imaginings and speculative reasonings that produce more contradictions than they resove is all I have ever encountered.
As you reproduce.

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.

 

[fallingblood]

continued from above:

　
Jesus' descent from David can not be shown to be through Joseph, both genealogies make it clear that Joseph is not Jesus' father.
Both are clear tha Jesus' father is God by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus' mother was his only link, via the flesh, to the line of David; illogical, paradoxical, that is how the matter is presented.
And it should be remembered that God, Yahweh the Elohim of Israel, is not obliged to conform with traditional Jewish usage; even in the matter of descent from David.
Now if descent through Mary showed nothing to the Jews, that is fine because the NT writers were not writing to, or for, the Jews.
Your assumption supposes that the NT writers were under some obligation to conform with the authority of Jewish usage, and that is a false assumption.
They had already been rejected by and were under persecution from the Jewish authorities.
Each of the Gospels has, therfore, a Gentile orientation.

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.

　
'going through Mary .... proves nothing, it would discredit Jesus' being a descendent of David'
This may be the point that shows your lack of critical focus.
Jesus' resurrection proved his Messiahhip, that he was 'the son of David', the genealogy is not there to prove anything that had not already been proven.
You have the events and the ideas out of chronological sequence and imagine, thereby, that the genealogy must be there to prove descent through David to a Jewish readership.
That is not the case.

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.

　
Jesus' sonship. of God, is universally recognised in the NT and the fullness of the idea seems to have been first enunciated by Peter in his exclamation the 'Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God'.
The statement is the rock upon which Christianity is built.
And from that rock flow the twin ideas of a duality of Jesus' nature and a virgin birth.
There was no benefit to be had in recounting anything about the duality of Jesus' nature or the virgin birth to anyone who did not accept the first premise, his 'sonship'.
And the Jewish authorities had rejected his sonship.

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.

　
Now, there is no further point in trying to convince someone of 'thus because of so' if they reject the 'so', the resurrection (in this case the 'so') that proved Jesus' sonship.
So the Gospel was opened to and became focussed on the Gentiles.
And the Gospels were written reflecting that 'fact on the ground' in the development of the Christian religion.
So they had no need to convince or conform to Jewish sensibilities of the niceties of traditional descent.
They were free to present the facts of the descent, warts and all, paradoxical as they are.

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.

　
So, if you can see it, the descent through David is of secondary importance in Luke's genealogy; God could raise up children to David from stones or clay pits if He so chose; it is the descent from Adam that is important to Luke and the mirroring of son of God with son of God that is the principal feature of the genealogy.

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.
　

This is the page that I earlier referred you to for my comments on Irenaeus.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Irenaeus, as far as I can see, never said that the genealogy in Luke came from Mary.
　

The evidence is that Irenaeus refers to the manuscript and its contents.
'the daughter of Heli, or words to that effect', 72 rather than 77, as I said.
I think that hypothesising a lacuna in Luke is an excellent suggestion, for reasons I have stated (and for more).
The way, so it seems, that manuscripts develop is that they acquire words over the years.
Hence older manuscripts, nearer the source, have fewer words is a general rule.
A rule that supports the hypothesis.

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 think that the political situation inhibits debate on the subject.
The hypothesis destroys the, long held and firmly established, doctrine of the immaculate conception.
　

[/SIZE]

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.

 

[fallingblood]

Seems to me that much of what you say that disagrees with Rabbinical Judaism agrees with higher criticism and there is not much room left for the NT.

And much of what you say agrees with Church tradition and Christian faith. There is very little room for critical scholarship.

　
So, you think that 'the simplest solution is that there is a contradiction'.
You suppose that the 'simplest solution' is that one, or more, of the Gospel writers was a charlatan.
And then you reason on unsupported historical grounds that the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke were inserted much later.
So what are your historical grounds for this assertion?

I like how you jump to such a conclusion. If there is a contradiction, of course a Gospel writer had to be a charlatan? How does that even work?

And when did I say that the genealogies were added much later? I never did. Maybe you need to read what I said, and not assume ridiculous ideas that are not attested in what I've said.

There are many contradictions in the Bible, and in the NT. That simply is a fact. That doesn't mean the authors were charlatans, but that they were humans, and were mistaken from time to time.

　
The imagined adoptive parentage of Joseph is a furphy; Joseph's descent was through Jeconiah, see Matthew, which excluded his line from the kingship.
And if Matthew's genealogy is to be ascribed to Joseph, and Luke's to Joseph, then contradictions will abound.

Yes, there is a contradiction in the Bible. In fact, there are many. One more in this genealogy is no problem. Your defense is weak at best.

　
What theological purpose were Matthew and Luke pursuing, when, why?

I will refer you to Bart Ehrmans book on an Introduction to the New Testament. I don't feel like going into a detailed explanation of both Matthew and Luke's theological purpose, especially when Ehrman has covered it so well.

　
I do not say that the whole of Luke is 'incorrect' merely that there is, most probably, a lacuna in 3.23 that obscures the original ascription of the genealogy to Mary.
I do not create a 'new story'; my 'story' is, at least, as old as Irenaeus.

Except that Irenaeus never states such. The idea of Luke's genealogy going through Mary was not established until some 400 years after Irenaeus.

　
Your reasong that would have me say that 'the Gospel is incorrect' is falacious, a ridiculous and transparent strawman that is contemptible.
Most especially contemptible when it is considered that this may well be among the very few verses that you insist on in Luke.
What other verses do you insist on in Luke?

The Gospel is incorrect in many places. What day was Jesus crucified? They synoptics state that it was on Passover, John says it was the day before passover. One of the Gospels have to be wrong. Luke states that Jesus was born during the time census of Quirinus (6 C.E.) and around the time of the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.E.). Both dates could not be right, so the Gospel must be incorrect. Matthew states Herod had all the kids in Bethlehem massacred, yet there is not a single shred of evidence outside of Matthew, which suggests that Matthew is incorrect.

There are many instances in which the Gospels are incorrect. If you believe they are perfect, then there is no reason to continue with such a discussion.

　
Yeah, exactly, you have no idea, neither do I, as to why the arrangement of Matthew was made.
Matthew is making an unkown theological statement or the text was ammended later for unknown, esoteric, reasons.

Didn't I explain why Matthew set his genealogy up in such a way? I think I did.

　
God can count descent in any way that He pleases; see the Daughters of Zelophehad.
Only the Rabbis insist on an absolute and unalterable descent through the male line, and you agree with them.
You are trapped in Rabbinical pronouncements on 1st century Judaism, and dismissing the fact that 1st century Judaism had a diversity of thought that the Rabbis destroyed.

Rabbinical Judaism didn't exist until after Jesus was long dead. It didn't really formulate until after 70 C.E., after the first Jewish revolt. And I'm not relying on their sources. So your accusations are simply false.

Trying to dismiss me because you assume incorrectly about my sources will not work. And since I've told you over and over again, I don't subscribe to Rabbinical Judaism, or use it in my studies, you're simply be dishonest now.

　
There are 'good reasons' to trace descent through a woman's line.
I didn't show it, by reference, because you say that you have knowledge of both Jewish custom and the Scriptures; I thought, from your own professions, that you would be aware of the exceptions to the rule.
However, you appear to be unaware of Numbers 27.1 ff. where it is said that the daughters should be considered as their father's heirs; that the portion, in Israel, of their father should descend to them.
There are other OT scriptures of note in this regard also that prove that the matter is not as 'simple' as you, and the Rabbis, portray it.

I love how you manipulate the OT. Numbers 27:1 has nothing to do with Kingly descent. It is a completely different matter. It is dealing with inheritance, not tracing descent. Huge difference. So no, there is no good reason to trace descent through a woman. Especially not when considering a kingly descent.

　
You maintain your absoluteness, 'there are no good reasons to read Luke's genealogy as that of Mary's'.
However, I maintain that there are many 'good' reasons and that the 'good' outweigh the 'bad'.

That is one of the few absolute statements that I've made. And no, there is no good reason to assume Luke details Mary's genealogy. You've provided none, and Luke states something very different.

　
I do not have to 'ignore what Luke states', I merely, on sound grounds, hypothesise a lacuna in one verse.
And thereby am not compelled to discard vast tracts of the Gospel.
Your pedantic reading of the received text requires you to discard those vast tracts in order to retain one verse.
Yeah, right, good move; very Rabbinical, very higher critical.

Do you ever get sick of being dishonest? Of misrepresenting me? Of insulting me? That's one reason I hate having any type of religious discussion with Christians, because they are insulting. That and they maintain that they have to be write, and everyone else is just ignorant.