Jesus Christ had an earthly father

“Fine. It doesn't make sense to you”, That doesn’t make sense to any of us, except for the Christian and Catholic churches that teach this lie. The Scripture clearly tells you that Christ is from the seed of David. The man holds the seed. Leviticus 15:16 - And if any mans seede of copulation goe out from him, then hee shall wash all his flesh in water, and bee vncleane vntill the Euen. So if the man holds the seed, how did Jesus come from the seed of David with no man to plant the seed in Mary? That doesn’t make sense. Deuteronomy 18:15 - The Lord thy God will raise vp vnto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like vnto me, vnto him ye shall hearken, The Prophet Moses is speaking of here is Christ. “like vnto me,” – Christ came into the world as Moses did, through a man and woman having sexual intercourse to conceive a child. Moses was not immaculately born, neither was Christ. “that doesn't change that Christ's virgin birth is true.” You’re right it doesn’t change the fact that the virgin birth is true, it was still a prophecy fulfilled. You just have a misunderstanding of what the virgin birth really is because the Catholic/Christian churches are lying about how Christ came into the world. “The whole point of the Virgin Birth is that it is a miracle. A miracle done by God, who by definition is "All Powerful". Do you dispute God being all powerful? Do you not believe that He could perform miracles?” Of course, everything my Creator does among HIS people is a miracle. “I didn't feel the need to refute any of your points because they are all meaningless due to this:” So CON doesn’t feel the need to refute my points because “they are all meaningless” due to his few verses he used. CON doesn’t really use the Bible to refute any of my points, besides the three or four he has listed. I’ve provided many verse and refute his points. "Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man [Jeconiah] childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." I’ve already refuted this using the Bible. “Regardless of what interpretations you have of those various lines of Scripture, you can't ignore that God himself curses the line of Solomon (Of which Joseph is from) that they will never sit upon the throne of David. Therefore, you can't accept this and still believe that Joseph was Jesus's biological father. It would be impossible.” 1. I didn’t give any interpretation, I gave scripture and I let the Bible refute your points. 2. I accept that Solomon’s lineage was cursed, the entire nation of Israel is under curses right now because we broke HIS commandments. Therefore, Israel did not and still doesn’t have a king until Christ returns to deliver us out of this captivity. “You said this: "It was through her ancestry that Jesus had a birthright in the bloodline of the Tribe of Judah, the line from which all kings of Judah came. The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is not through Solomon, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of King David). Jeconiah was not an ancestor of Mary"s and therefore the blood curse is not upon Jesus" ancestral line through His mother." " Where is this in the Bible?” I’m sorry, can you quote exactly where I made this statement? I read through my argument and could not find anywhere where I made this statement. “In addition Luke"s and Matthew"s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David"s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel"s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was "thought" to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew"s genealogy traced the kingly line of David"the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke"s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.” Again, Jesus had two genealogies, his father’s side, Joseph, and his mother’s side, Mary. You seem to continue ignore Acts 2:30 and 1 John 4:3. “He is put there for legal reasons, through the legal system of the Hebrew's Jesus is considered of the Line of David from Joseph's side.” Can you show us this in the Bible? “You continually tell me to use things inside of the Bible to explain customs of Jewish Society. The New Testament isn't a book on Jewish Society, it's a book on the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, following with the letters of Paul, etc. It doesn't talk of these customs, because that's not it's purpose. Simply by researching these topics you can find them out. It's not rocket science.” No, the New Covenant is a promise to the Israelites to deliver us out of this captivity. Christ did away with animal sacrifice, that’s what the New Testament is about. Everything in the New Covenant is recited from the Old Covenant. When Christ came on the scene, what covenant were the Israelites under? They were under the Old Covenant. Hebrews 10:4-5 [4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Jeremiah 31:31 - Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Galatians 4:4 [4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Sonne, made of a woman, made under the law, “made of a woman, made UNDER THE LAW,” – Leviticus 12:2-4 is the law it’s talking about. Again, when Christ was on the scene, the Israelites were under the Old Covenant. “So, are you ignoring the verse in Jeremiah that cursed the line of Solomon? Answer me that one question. That's what the debate should be centered around.” No, I’m not I because I already explained to you that Israel didn’t not and still doesn’t have a king because we broke the commandment of God. We are still in captivity today. It seems CON is not going to answer my question nor is he going to refute any of my points. He continues evading questions I asked regarding Scripture. “(1.) God cursed the line of Solomon, saying that never will any of his descendants sit upon the throne.” Actually, Jesus comes from David and Solomon. Matthew 1:6 - And Iesse begate Dauid the King, & Dauid the King begat Solomon of her that had bin the wife of Urias. “(2.) Joseph was of the Line of Solomon.” As was Jesus; Matthew 1:6 up above shows the genealogy of Christ. “(3.) Therefore, He couldn't have been Jesus's biological father. Rather, He is an adopted father.” Well, that’s not true because both Joseph and Jesus descend from David and Solomon. You are still evading the question. Can you show us the Bible verse that says Joseph adopted Jesus? “(3.) Solomon's line was cursed, therefore the Messiah would have to come from Nathan's line.” And again, Matthew 1:6 says Jesus comes from David and Solomon. Both David and Solomon are listed in the blood line of Christ, therefore Jesus comes from both David and Solomon. “(6.) Therefore, Jesus is still of David's "seed" however it is through Mary's line. BY BLOOD.” So you saying David came back from the dead and had sex with Mary and impregnated her with Jesus? That’s non sense. The man, as I mentioned above, the man holds the seed or sperm. Leviticus 15:16 - And if any mans seede of copulation goe out from him, then hee shall wash all his flesh in water, and bee vncleane vntill the Euen. Seed (sperm): From speiro; something sown, i.e. Seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting) -- issue, seed. So I defined “seed”. Now let’s get the definition for “copulation”. Copulation: sexual intercourse. “Does this make sense to you? Jews trace legal lineage through the Male Line, open up a History Book” It sure does make sense, that’s what Numbers 1:18 says. Numbers 1:18 - And they assembled all the Congregation together on the first day of the second moneth, and they declared their pedegrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty yeres old and vpward by their polle.