| ultima said:
It's more like this: on one hand we have the words of the book, on the other your explanation that is clearly not conforming with the words of the book. Which do we take? I'm sorry, if you're allowed to change wording at will, then you can make anything seem plausible. I brought up the adoption tradition because you made it seem like Joseph would've been a stranger to Jesus, and Joseph's lineage would not transfer down to Jesus; this is simply false by Jewish tradition. |
No, it's not. It's on one hand you consider Joseph the adoptive father (supposed father), and on the other you consider him the in law, in both cases him being the supposed son of Heli (supposed son).
I don't remember saying that Joseph would have been a stranger to Jesus. I understand the importance of adoption in the Jewish tradition. But I also understand the importance of blood genealogy, by virtue of his virgin mother.
