The Birth and Nature of Christ

[DHK]

Still no Scriptural proof that Mary contributed an egg, I see.

Apparently your view is not new.

Oppositions to the Doctrine:
Historically the virgin-birth statement performed a function commensurate with the importance ascribed to it in this discussion rather than the current depreciation of it. The doctrine of Christ was menaced in two opposite directions, which may be designated respectively by the terms "Ebionite" and "Gnostic." According to the former teaching (the word "Ebionite" being used in a general sense only), Jesus was reduced to the human category and interpreted as a Spirit-led man or prophet, in the Old Testament meaning of the term. According to the opposite tendency, He was interpreted as divine, while His human experience was reduced to mere appearance of a temporary external union with the Logos. The virgin-birth statement resisted both these tendencies with equal effectiveness. On the one hand, it asserted with unequivocal definiteness a real humanity conditioned by true birth into an actual connection with the race. On the other hand, it asserted an exceptional birth, setting Jesus apart as one whose entrance into the world was due to a new, creative contact of God with the race. Historically, it is difficult to see how the New Testament doctrine could have escaped mutilation apart from the statement, seemingly framed with express reference to conditions arising afterward, which so wonderfully guarded it. The holy mystery of the Lord's origin became the symbol of the holier mystery of His divine nature. It thus appears in every one of the historic creeds, an assertion of fact around which the belief of the church crystallized into the faith which alone accounts for its history, a profound and immovable conviction that Jesus Christ was really incarnate Deity.


Its Importance to Modern Thought:
The importance for modern thinking of the virgin-birth statement is threefold:


(1) First, it involves in general the question, never more vital than at the present time, of the trustworthiness of the gospel tradition. This particular fact, i.e. the virgin-birth, has been a favorite, because apparently a vulnerable, point of attack. But the presuppositions of the attack and the method according to which it has been conducted involve a general and radical undermining of confidence in the testimony of the gospel witnesses. This process has finally met its nemesis in the Christus-myth propaganda. The virgin-birth statement can be successfully assailed on no grounds which do not involve the whole witnessing body of Christians in charges of blind credulity or willful falsification, very unjust indeed as respects their character and standing in general, but very difficult to repel in view of the results of denial at this point.


(2) The virgin-birth is important for the simple historical reason that it involves or is involved in a clear and consistent account of the Lord's birth and early years. Apart from the infancy narratives we are utterly without direct information as to His birth, ancestry or early years. Apart from these narratives we have no information as to the marriage of Joseph and Mary; we are shut up to vague inferences as to this entire period. No biographer ever leaves these points obscure if he can avoid it. It is very earnestly suggested that those who cast discredit upon the infancy story do not clearly recognize the seriousness of the situation brought about in the absence of any narrative which can be trusted as to this vital point. Calumny there is and has been from an early day. If there is nowhere an authoritative answer to the calumny, in what sort of a position is the Christian believer placed? He can assert nothing, because apart from what he has too lightly thrown away he knows nothing.


(3) Lastly, the more closely the statement as to the Lord's birth is studied, the more clearly it will be seen that it involves in a most vital and central way the entire doctrine of the incarnation. This doctrine is an interpretation of facts. Those facts stand together. In the midst of those facts, harmonizing with them, shedding light upon them and receiving light from them, resting upon the same consentient testimony is the statement, which is thus worded in the oldest symbol of our historical faith: "Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Born of the Virgin Mary" (see APOSTLES' CREED). There is no adequate reason why the intelligent believer should feel uncertain as to this statement of our holy religion.

They call it a mutilation of the doctrine of the virgin birth. It was never held by the early church. This is the Ebionite theory--the theory that you hold to, SFIC

 

[standingfirminChrist]

ISBE is not the Bible, DHK.

They can call it heretical, satanistic in origin, spaceship, or anything else. It is not the Bible. It is man's view.

I will believe what the Lord showed me through the reading of the Word of God. The doctrine was taught by John... and the Word was made flesh.

It was taught by Paul... God, sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. (God dispatched His Son in the resemblance of sinful flesh) does not say He came in sinful flesh, but only what resembled sinful flesh.
It was taught by Isaiah... a virgin shall conceive. (be pregnant)... does not say get pregnant.
It was taught by the Physician Luke... and thou shalt conceive. (sieze, clasp)... that which God placed in her, she siezed a hold of in her womb.

 

[DHK]

ISBE is not the Bible, DHK.

They can call it heretical, satanistic in origin, spaceship, or anything else. It is not the Bible. It is man's view.

I will believe what the Lord showed me through the reading of the Word of God.

Many Godly a Presbyterian scholar believed that the Holy Spirit showed them that infant baptism was taught in the Scriptures. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make their claim "the Holy Spirit showed me" correct either.

 

[DHK]

Doesn't the fact that this has been considered a heresy from the roots of Christianity onward even phase you?

 

[DHK]

ISBE is not the Bible, DHK.
I will believe what the Lord showed me through the reading of the Word of God. The doctrine was taught by John... and the Word was made flesh.

That speaks to the divinity of Christ not his humanity.
In his deity he became flesh. It speaks nothing of the virgin birth.

It was taught by Paul... God, sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. (God dispatched His Son in the resemblance of sinful flesh) does not say He came in sinful flesh, but only what resembled sinful flesh.

Quite correct. That teaches that he avoided the sin nature of Adam; that he avoided the sperm of a man; that he was therefore conceived by the Holy Spirit.

It was taught by Isaiah... a virgin shall conceive. (be pregnant)... does not say get pregnant.

One and the same thing in the Bible. 700 years before Christ (and during the time of Christ) they didn't have the technology of in vitro fertilization. Surrogate mothers were unheard of. And that was never promised to Mary, who said to the angel "How shall this be seeing I know (have not had sexual relations) not a man." Mary was referring to conception in Luke 1:34 and in verse 35 the angel answers her how conception would take place--through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

It was taught by the Physician Luke... and thou shalt conceive. (sieze, clasp)... that which God placed in her, she siezed a hold of in her womb.

That is the funniest definition of conception I have ever heard. My wife conceived (with my help) four children. All four times the process was the same. You can read about it in any biology book. It was necessary that an egg be fertilized. God did not shoot some embryo or fetus through space and make a perfect 3 point landing in Mary's womb. That is not conception. It is heresy. Take heed to what the traditional church teaching on this subject is and don't read your own definitions into words, definitions that are contrary to the Word, and contrary to common sense.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Louis Matthew Sweet's article on the Virgin Birth in the ISBE was written in the early to mid-1900's.

I have produced articles from my SwordSearcher that have dated pre-1900's that have refuted Sweet's false belief.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

That speaks to the divinity of Christ not his humanity.
In his deity he became flesh. It speaks nothing of the virgin birth.
Quite correct. That teaches that he avoided the sin nature of Adam; that he avoided the sperm of a man; that he was therefore conceived by the Holy Spirit.
One and the same thing in the Bible. 700 years before Christ (and during the time of Christ) they didn't have the technology of in vitro fertilization. Surrogate mothers were unheard of. And that was never promised to Mary, who said to the angel "How shall this be seeing I know (have not had sexual relations) not a man." Mary was referring to conception in Luke 1:34 and in verse 35 the angel answers her how conception would take place--through the operation of the Holy Spirit.
That is the funniest definition of conception I have ever heard. My wife conceived (with my help) four children. All four times the process was the same. You can read about it in any biology book. It was necessary that an egg be fertilized. God did not shoot some embryo or fetus through space and make a perfect 3 point landing in Mary's womb. That is not conception. It is heresy. Take heed to what the traditional church teaching on this subject is and don't read your own definitions into words, definitions that are contrary to the Word, and contrary to common sense.

Bet you won't find the birth of Christ in a biology book, as recorded by the Word of God.

You keep wanting to define the supernatural with the natural. It isn't gonna work.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[DHK]

Bet you won't find the birth of Christ in a biology book, as recorded by the Word of God.

You keep wanting to define the supernatural with the natural. It isn't gonna work.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

SFIC, you make up your own definitions!
If you don't understand what it means to conceive go to a biology book and find out. It does not mean "to seize or clasp." That is just ridiculous and made-up to try and fit into your own theology. Try using genuine definitions.

It is God that uses the natural.
He used a natural earthquake in the time Moses for judgement:

Deuteronomy 11:6 And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

Earthquakes are not miraculous events. But the timing of this earthquake is what made it miraculous.
God used Mary's egg. There is no reason to believe He didn't. There is every reason to believe he did not, not the least being that it leads to heresy, and a less than human Christ.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

SFIC, you make up your own definitions!
If you don't understand what it means to conceive go to a biology book and find out. It does not mean "to seize or clasp." That is just ridiculous and made-up to try and fit into your own theology. Try using genuine definitions.

It is God that uses the natural.
He used a natural earthquake in the time Moses for judgement:

Deuteronomy 11:6 And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

Earthquakes are not miraculous events. But the timing of this earthquake is what made it miraculous.
God used Mary's egg. There is no reason to believe He didn't. There is every reason to believe he did not, not the least being that it leads to heresy, and a less than human Christ.

I know what conceive means, DHK. But Mary's conception was far from a natural biological conception. Hers was of a supernatural nature. It cannot be defined under natural definition of conception.

The Greek, and Hebrew, both give different words than our modern dictionaries of today give for the word 'conceive'.

I have demonstrated the conception was supernatural, yet you are wanting to bring it to a natural understanding. That cannot rightly be done.

Comparing an earthquake to Mary's conception is comparing apples and oranges. A conception is not an earthquake.

 

[Eliyahu]

What if in Luke the parentheses which was placed by translators was placed incorrectly and it should of been placed.
And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli..

which would be saying that Jesus was the son of Heli.

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, ..who was the son of Heli,"

Neither Matt or Luke ever says that Joseph begat Jesus, does it?

It says Jacob begat Joseph who was the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus. Why did it not say "Joseph begat Jesus"??

The Jewish schools who taught the Talmud torah on 77:4 says that Heli was the father of Mary, if what I read is correct.

Is there anyone who has the actual reading of the Talmud torah 77:4, so we could read it for ourselves??

BBob

​

The Greek portion is different from what you said above.

Luke 3:

23 Και αυτοσ ην ο Ιησουσ ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενοσ, ων ωσ ενομιζετο υιοσ Ιωσηφ του Ηλι, του ΜατΘατ του Λευι του Μελχι

The red letter portion is included in all manuscripts as far as I know.
The only exception is that 2 Roman catholic manuscripts B and Aleph have them transpositioned, like υιοσ Ιωσηφ ων ωσ ενομιζετο.

Therefore there is not so much variance among the texts/manuscripts, but there is only a few transpositioned.

As I mentioned, it is very simple as following:

Jesus... Son of Joseph tou Heli -tou Mattthat tou Leui tou Ianna.....

Do you believe Talmud? Do you reject Sola Scriptura? Then you are far away from the Christian believers. Your theory may not be able to stand without Talmud. My Belief stands on Sola Scripturs - Word became Flesh ( Jn 1:14)

 

[Brother Bob]

The Greek portion is different from what you said above.

Luke 3:

23 Και αυτοσ ην ο Ιησουσ ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενοσ, ων ωσ ενομιζετο υιοσ Ιωσηφ του Ηλι, του ΜατΘατ του Λευι του Μελχι

The red letter portion is included in all manuscripts as far as I know.
The only exception is that 2 Roman catholic manuscripts B and Aleph have them transpositioned, like υιοσ Ιωσηφ ων ωσ ενομιζετο.

Therefore there is not so much variance among the texts/manuscripts, but there is only a few transpositioned.

As I mentioned, it is very simple as following:

Jesus... Son of Joseph tou Heli -tou Mattthat tou Leui tou Ianna.....

Do you believe Talmud? Do you reject Sola Scriptura? Then you are far away from the Christian believers. Your theory may not be able to stand without Talmud. My Belief stands on Sola Scripturs - Word became Flesh ( Jn 1:14)

So, why do you not accept this as the truth, instead of trying to find scripture around it, of which you have not? No one that I know of is denying that Jesus took a body of flesh. He didn't have to leave Heaven and come down here and die.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

[donnA]

I have to wonder what this is accomplishing.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So, why do you not accept this as the truth, instead of trying to find scripture around it, of which you have not? No one that I know of is denying that Jesus took a body of flesh. He didn't have to leave Heaven and come down here and die.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Bob, look up the Greek. 'seed of David' does not infer bloodline, only family. Christ was born in his family, but because God placed Him in the womb of Mary. Not because of her egg or another man's sperm cell.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I have to wonder what this is accomplishing.

I also am beginning to wonder. Those who will not hear, will not hear.

 

[Eliyahu]

One thing that we should consider is this:

Is the Biological Motherhood more honorable and graceful or Surrogate Motherhood is more honorable?

I am asking about the honor and glory to Mary and to David's family.

Biological Motherhood means that she offered the part of her flesh or the fruit of her body. But in this case we must remember that the body of Mary was sin stricken, polluted since the Fall of the first Adam.
Despite much of my explanation, many do not know the importance of Blemish and Spotless Body and Blood. Was it OK if Jesus had the disease of Leukemia? Can we still say that Jesus offered the blemish sacrifice despite His blindness or deaf, or with down syndrome? It is not limited to the physical defects but we should remember some people are quick to anger like Adolf Hitler.
Who is free of any human defects among the people who are born of women? ( Job 25:4)

Is Offering the ovum of the defective human race more honorable than receiving the sinless, blemish, spotless body of the Christ in her body ?

Surrogacy is not merely downgrading Mary, but returning to the Truth that we human beings cannot offer anything to God, instead it is a great honor and grace that she received the sinless person Jesus Christ in her body, which was not offered to any other women in the world. The Christian Truth is that we have nothing to offer to God but to receive from Him.
Offering the egg of a woman may be like the sacrifice of Cain who offered the fruits of the Earth by his own efforts and works, while Abel offered the sacrifice of the Blood and Fat of the Lamb which is the symbol of Jesus Christ offered by God.
In that aspect, Mary was blessed, not because she was a specially talented or sinless, but because she simply accepted the grace from God.

I already mentioned the body itself is not the source of sin, but it has been stricken by sins thru the ages and lost the capacity to live for the justice and for the Glory of God. No one can be free of defects.

Nobody continues to explain how the Word became Flesh while the egg of Mary was used. But the Truth stands - The Word became Flesh, there was the Life in the Word.

 

[Brother Bob]

Here's what I've come up with....

According to Julius Africanus (c160-c240 AD) (I believe also referenced in Eusebius) in his Letter to Aristides:

"And for this reason the one traced the pedigree of Jacob the father of Joseph from David through Solomon; the other traced that of Heli also, though in a different way, the father of Joseph, from Nathan the son of David. And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda."

He continuing in Chapter II:
"For indeed, by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up children to the name of a brother dying childless; for because no clear hope of resurrection was yet given them, they had a representation of the future promise in a kind of mortal resurrection, with the view of perpetuating the name of one deceased;—whereas, then, of those entered in this genealogy, some succeeded by legitimate descent as son to father, while others begotten in one family were introduced to another in name, mention is therefore made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact, and of those who were so only in name. Thus neither of the evangelists is in error, as the one reckons by nature and the other by law. For the several generations, viz., those descending from Solomon and those from Nathan, were so intermingled by the raising up of children to the childless, and by second marriages, and the raising up of seed, that the same persons are quite justly reckoned to belong at one time to the one, and at another to the other, i.e., to their reputed or to their actual fathers. And hence it is that both these accounts are true, and come down to Joseph, with considerable intricacy indeed, but yet quite accurately."

In Chapter III...

"But in order that what I have said may be made evident, I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, Matthan is found to be the third from the end, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son was Heli the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Melchi*. [*Note: But in our text in Luke iii. 23, 24, and so, too, in the Vulgate, Matthat and Levi are inserted between Heli and Melchi. It may be that these two names were not found in the copy used by Africanus.] As Joseph, therefore, is the object proposed to us, we have to show how it is that each is represented as his father, both Jacob as descending from Solomon, and Heli as descending from Nathan: first, how these two, Jacob and Heli, were brothers; and then also how the fathers of these, Matthan and Melchi* (Matthat), being of different families, are shown to be the grandfathers of Joseph. Well, then, Matthan and Melchi*(Matthat), having taken the same woman to wife in succession, begat children who were uterine brothers, as the law did not prevent a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another. By Estha, then—for such is her name according to tradition—Matthan first, the descendant of Solomon, begets Jacob; and on Matthan’s death, Melchi*(Matthat), who traces his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, having married her, as has been already said, had a son Heli. Thus, then, we shall find Jacob and Heli uterine brothers, though of different families. And of these, the one Jacob having taken the wife of his brother Heli, who died childless, begat by her the third, Joseph—his son by nature and by account. Whence also it is written, “And Jacob begat Joseph.” But according to law he was the son of Heli, for Jacob his brother raised up seed to him. Wherefore also the genealogy deduced through him will not be made void, which the Evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: “And Jacob begat Joseph.” But Luke, on the other hand, says, “Who was the son, as was supposed (for this, too, he adds), of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Melchi*(Matthat--see note above).” For it was not possible more distinctly to state the generation according to law; and thus in this mode of generation he has entirely omitted the word “begat” to the very end, carrying back the genealogy by way of conclusion to Adam and to God."


Then a few centuries later, according to John of Damascus, in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

"But that Joseph is descended from the tribe of David is expressly demonstrated by Matthew and Luke, the most holy evangelists. But Matthew derives Joseph from David through Solomon, while Luke does so through Nathan; while over the holy Virgin’s origin both pass in silence.
One ought to remember that it was not the custom of the Hebrews nor of the divine Scripture to give genealogies of women; and the law was to prevent one tribe seeking wives from another[Numbers 36:6-12]. . And so since Joseph was descended from the tribe of David and was a just man (for this the divine Gospel testifies), he would not have espoused the holy Virgin contrary to the law; he would not have taken her unless she had been of the same tribe. It was sufficient, therefore, to demonstrate the descent of Joseph.
One ought also to observe this, that the law was that when a man died without seed, this man’s brother should take to wife the wife of the dead man and raise up seed to his brother. The offspring, therefore, belonged by nature to the second, that is, to him that begat it, but by law to the dead.
Born then of the line of Nathan, the son of David, Levi begat Melchi* [*"Matthat", see NOTE above in citation of Julius Africanus] and Panther: Panther begat Barpanther, so called. This Barpanther begat Joachim: Joachim begat the holy Mother of God. And of the line of Solomon, the son of David, Mathan had a wife of whom he begat Jacob. Now on the death of Mathan, Melchi* (Matthat), of the tribe of Nathan, the son of Levi and brother of Panther, married the wife of Mathan, Jacob’s mother, of whom he begat Heli. Therefore Jacob and Heli became brothers on the mother’s side, Jacob being of the tribe of Solomon and Heli of the tribe of Nathan. Then Heli of the tribe of Nathan died childless, and Jacob his brother, of the tribe of Solomon, took his wife and raised up seed to his brother and begat Joseph. Joseph, therefore, is by nature the son of Jacob, of the line of Solomon, but by law he is the son of Heli of the line of Nathan. " (De Fide Ortho IV, 14)

Comments:
--So John basically repeats what Julius states regarding the geneologies of Joseph while adding the detail of Mary's great-grandfather and Joseph's (legal) grandfather being brothers--both sons of Levi--making them legally second cousins once removed.

--The names of Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, go back very early, at least to the Protoevangelium of James (mid 2nd century AD) where they are described as David's descendents. (These names were consistent in Christian tradition)

--Both Ignatius (Ephesians 18) and Justin Martyr (Adv Trypho 100) also testify to the fact that Mary is of the seed of David.

--So Joseph is biologically and legally the descendent of David, and Mary is the descendent of David as well. If this assessment is correct then God seems to have had "all his bases covered". :thumbs:



As for the Talmud reference...
‘...that saw “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear’

(I got this from a website which advocates the idea that Luke's geneology was that of Mary). If this is indeed a reference to Christ's mother Mary, then it's maliciousness may give one pause before ascribing too much crediblity to it regarding the exact connection between Mary and Heli (although the two are cousins, based on John's (of Damascus) account). At any rate, from what I've read, in Christian circles the idea that Luke's geneology was that of Mary, rather that of Joseph, came very late in history.

So, in the end, Joseph could not of had anything to do with the birth of Christ, for he "knew her not" until Jesus was born. According to this research, both Joseph and Mary were seed of David:

--Both Ignatius (Ephesians 18) and Justin Martyr (Adv Trypho 100) also testify to the fact that Mary is of the seed of David

And according to the Law of Moses in Numbers:


1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

Mary could indeed pass the seed of David to her Son, Jesus, and fulfill the following scripture.


Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

 

[Eliyahu]

So, why do you not accept this as the truth, instead of trying to find scripture around it, of which you have not? No one that I know of is denying that Jesus took a body of flesh. He didn't have to leave Heaven and come down here and die.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

It is you that do not accept the Bible as it is. You are the one who tried to distort the Bible by omitting the name of Joseph. Why didn't you include the name of Mary in the genealogy, then you could have successfully manufactured a bible.

The Bible clearly says The Word became Flesh, while you say Jesus took a flesh out of Mary.

Rome 1:3 says that Jesus Christ came out of the Seed of David, which means that He came out of the descendant of David.

How could you explain Word became flesh while Seed of David was used?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So, in the end, Joseph could not of had anything to do with the birth of Christ, for he "knew her not" until Jesus was born. According to this research, both Joseph and Mary were seed of David:

--Both Ignatius (Ephesians 18) and Justin Martyr (Adv Trypho 100) also testify to the fact that Mary is of the seed of David

And according to the Law of Moses in Numbers:


1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

Mary could indeed pass the seed of David to her Son, Jesus, and fulfill the following scripture.


Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

Mary did not pass the seed, BBob. Women have no seed to pass. Mary bore the Son of God, who was the seed prophesied of in Genesis 3:15.

 

[Brother Bob]

It is you that do not accept the Bible as it is. You are the one who tried to distort the Bible by omitting the name of Joseph. Why didn't you include the name of Mary in the genealogy, then you could have successfully manufactured a bible.

The Bible clearly says The Word became Flesh, while you say Jesus took a flesh out of Mary.

Rome 1:3 says that Jesus Christ came out of the Seed of David, which means that He came out of the descendant of David.

How could you explain Word became flesh while Seed of David was used?

Because He was 100 percent man and 100 percent God. IMO
And I did not leave the name of Joseph out of anything that I remember. Joseph according to scripture had no part in the birth of Christ, and to say so is distorting the scripture. IMO.

BBob,

 

[Eliyahu]

So, in the end, Joseph could not of had anything to do with the birth of Christ, for he "knew her not" until Jesus was born. According to this research, both Joseph and Mary were seed of David:

--Both Ignatius (Ephesians 18) and Justin Martyr (Adv Trypho 100) also testify to the fact that Mary is of the seed of David

And according to the Law of Moses in Numbers:


1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

Mary could indeed pass the seed of David to her Son, Jesus, and fulfill the following scripture.


Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

A typical resort is the so-called church fathers when the people cannot find the support in the Bible.

Those OT bible mentions about the inheritance of the daughters. I do not ignore them, nor do I rule out the possibility that the genealogy of Luke is for Mary. But I do not rule out the possibility of Joseph's mother because Joseph's name is there but Mary's name is not there.

Do the OT verses omit the names of the daughters? Do they provide any clue for the Biological Motherhood?

Moreover this is not core issue either.

The real core issue is this:

1) How Biological Motherhood can be compatible with Incarnation.
How did Egg of Mary form a human form while the Word became Flesh.

2) How the sin nature of the Egg of Mary could be avoided.