The Trinity thread has created a 3rd thread. Now, for this one, since I think it is viewed as far more of an essential than Trinity, I think this one will go by much faster, but however, it's time for this one to come to fruitation.

Now, as for Virgin Birth within itself, I have no problems believing it and see it as Biblical, but I have been pondering a few thoughts on it, with so far 1 way of discrediting it (which ironically ties in with the other 2).

To begin with, well start with a translation claim. Now, since I am concentrating on the Trinity atm, I don't have any definitive proof or links or any of that. Now, if be explained better, the claim is that the word Virgin actually mean young woman, not never had sex ever. I have heard that it was changed later on to Virgin. How definitive and truthful this is in itself I don't know.

Now, another thing that I think about however. If Jesus is born of a Virgin, then what was the entire point of listing the family tree of Joseph? And if it serves me correctly, it is in Joseph's tree where you get King David. Now, with that being said, if Joseph isn't the biological Father of Jesus, then how on earth is Jesus the Son of David as I've seen in the Scriptures, if His Earthly father is NOT His father?

If Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, then the entire family tree is worthless and pointless. The only viable family tree Jesus has is simply Mary's, and the Holy Spirit's. (Note, I'm also not trying to implement the Mormon explanation of this either).

In addition, as I've said in the Trinity thread for more explanation, I honestly think Luke's Ch.3 verses on the Trinity thread are challenging the Divinity of Christ, up until the Baptism of Christ. With that being said, it seems Jesus would have been like any other person (lest there is Biblical proof of Christ performing miracles as a child like he does as an adult), but as Mary who was chosen, Jesus was chosen as well. Could this in fact be altering Prophecies on the Jewish Messiah? Maybe so, but clarification is definately needed here.

But the way I'm seeing it, God sent Himself (HS) to Jesus and it is that which gave Jesus His Divinity and acceptance as the only begotten Son as opposed to just Son. And if the claim I made on the Scripture with what God said is True, then it doesn't alter Christ or His' Divinity at all, but rather refutes what is generally taught and preached about Him. Binitarian, or Trinitarian here doesn't matter, but I do hope whichever opponents and friends of said views would help me out here, especially with some Bible Scripture as well.

Both Joseph and Mary are descended from David. Luke and Matthew list different genealogies...but both go back to David. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph's

Since Joseph is Jesus' legal father, his genealogy establishes Jesus' legal right the the throne of David.

BryneVampyr wrote:

Both Joseph and Mary are descended from David. Luke and Matthew list different genealogies...but both go back to David. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph's

Since Joseph is Jesus' legal father, his genealogy establishes Jesus' legal right the the throne of David.

On that, since if Mary is also from David, then Jesus is still the Son of David, that one was easy, so then, I'd have to go look even further into this all.

Even without Joseph, if Mary's lineage goes back to David, then yep, that does make sense on Jesus being the Son of David.

Alright, fixed one problem hehe.

Ok. I just woke up and looked at the other family tree. Both family trees go to Joseph, neither to Mary. So, do you have the Biblical Scriptures that show Mary was also descendant of David the King? As for Joseph's family tree, that would cause yet another thread, or maybe a couple pms.

If you look at the actual names, they are different. Also, the original text did not contain "son". In fact, "son" or "son-in-law" could have been used.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html

Quote :

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].