Jesus Christ had an earthly father

Your argument is very well thought out. However, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Book of Matthew. The Book of Matthew has been widely known to be directed towards Jews to convince them of Jesus being the Messiah (As the Messiah would've had to be from the Line of David). There are two lineages put in the Bible, one being Mary's and one being Joseph's. A question many have asked is, why? Now, there are two explanations. Of which I will list. (1.) One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of "levirate marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man"s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man"s name. According to Eusebius"s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil"s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the "son of Heli" legally and the "son of Jacob" biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph"s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological. (2.) Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary"s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph"s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus" legal father), through David"s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus" blood relative), though David"s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for "son-in-law," Joseph was called the "son of Heli" by marriage to Mary, Heli"s daughter. Through either Mary"s or Joseph"s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother"s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke"s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (Luke 3:23). So, there you have it. I am leaning more towards point 2. Reason being is because Joseph, while not being the blood-father was still considered Jesus's father legally. Which was very important to the Jews given their patriarchal society. However, Jesus is still (By blood) of the Line of David through Mary. I would also like to give a reason (Backed by Scripture) why Jesus couldn't have been Joseph's blood descendant. 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. Jeconiah was a descendant in the line of Solomon, so the genealogy in Matthew is tainted with a blood curse from Jeconiah all the way to Joseph. No descendant of Jeconiah would qualify as King of Israel. But remember, Joseph was only the legal father of Jesus, not his biological father. Therefore Jesus was not of the seed of Jeconiah. The blood curse, which would have disqualified Him from a legal right to rule as King of Judah, was not passed on to Jesus. Mary was Jesus" only human parent. 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. So if Joseph had been Jesus" biological father, He could not have fulfilled the prophecy of being Messiah. This supports the virgin birth, which is exactly what was prophesied: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. In summary, Joseph was Jesus" earthly, adopted father. God is Jesus" heavenly Father. Jesus was begotten of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was Jesus" human mother, a young virgin who gave birth to the Son of God. The blood curse upon Joseph"s line was not passed on to Jesus. I am open to your refutation. However, you must keep in mind that Joseph could not have been Jesus's blood father due to the Blood Curse put upon the line of SOLOMON. Since Mary is descended from David's other son (Nathan) Jesus was able to fulfill the Messianic Prophecy.