I adressed that... I told you that every bible version that I looked at unanimously agreed that there wasn't such a notion present. Once again, Mary is not mentioned. At all.

2) Why not? After all, Jesus had no biological father at all. Perhaps he lent his right to a biological father to Joseph, so he could have two.

But no, all joking aside, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

@bold. Facepalm I didn't, your friend in skepticism Osc did. Regardless I respect creationists for what they do so I wouldn't care if they were considered to a comparable level of discipline each in their own field. But when someone is bundling the words pseudoscience when talking about religious studies, you know you have a boso on your hands.

@1. Religious studies makes use of history, for example, to explain ideas found in religious texts that may seem contradictory. Whether it has life implications to you or not doesn't change the fact that it is a very complex and in-depth multi-disciplinary study that really resembles detective work. It requires knowledge of linguistics, history, archaelogy, and many other disciplines in order to find answers to theological questions.

Holy hell. Mary was not mentioned. All males, except Joseph, had the greek article Tou before each name. That's because Joseph was the Son in law.

No, you still don't understand. People study contexts and interpretation for a living, it's they job, it is their science. They analysis are not arbitrary, and they do comparative studies and linguistics analysis, as well as doctrinal analyses. Their results are not arbitrary and I can tell you that you still have no knowledge of the value of science behind religious studies.

That's because you're biased. I've seen it before, and when I read "The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience.", I know I'm talking with someone who has no knowledge or contact with theology whatsoever.

My sister studied theology for more than 3 years she is now doing a masters, and she is a very smart girl, barely christian but she is smart. I can tell you that she puts in a LOT of work in what she does. That you bag it all up into one big lump with troll terms such as "creationist theory pseudoscience" goes to show that you truly know nothing about the topic at hand.

1. He used pseudoscience when referring to creationism, and that's a moniker that is completely justified. You, then, put creationists and theologists together, as if creationists do anything that is considered productive. I think most theologists would find that offensive; rightly so.

2. I didn't ask about the process or the difficulties of theological research. I had a vague idea of that already. I inquired about its value. What makes it so valuable as to warrant such explicit description?

Holy hell. No such distinction is present in any of the versions I've seen. How do you explain that then, if your point is so clear that it's frustrating you? Did every single translator overlook this? Seems unlikely. Improbable. Dare I say, impossible?

2. Read bold. Read my posts. Please.

1. I am going to curse to the seven hells here you are driving me insane. HIS WORDS -> "The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience." in reference to theology, in this post.

Let's get this straight. The versions you read omitted Mary, am I right? They don't mention Mary?

What? Theology is not the same as creationism or having a religious approach. Theology would objectively study these passages and compare theories on whether they are including Mary, if there is a dispute over the lineage or if there was a translation error (and many other theories I imagine). It is a science, and is neutral in approach.

However you are denying and ignoring anything that would suggest the Bible is wrong. You said very early on in this thread how you believe the Bible does not contradict itself, which is something a theologian would not. They would acknowledge and study the reasons for the contradictions. You deny them.

Yes. I stated that a couple of times. No mention of Mary anywhere in that chapter, in fact.