Jesus Christ had an earthly father

I believe you misunderstood my reason for placing the two different interpretations of the lines, I did so just to show why I supported the latter theory. The one maintained by the majority of Historians. Con, you said " No one can come just from sperm and no one can come just from a woman's eggs. It takes both male and female to conceive a child. So this doesn't make any sense." Fine. It doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't change that Christ's virgin birth is true. 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? I didn't feel the need to refute any of your points because they are all meaningless due to this: "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." 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. 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? You asked where this was in the Bible... 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. 1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary. 2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph"s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line. Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one"s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel"that Jesus came to save all people"Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32). Luke 3:23 says, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary"s father and Jesus" grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew. So, once again. The Line of David is split when it comes to Mary and Joseph. It's split between two of David's sons. Solomon and Nathan. Since Solomon's line was cursed because of one of his descendants (Jeconiah) Joseph couldn't have been Jesus's biological father. Mary was of the line of Nathan, which not only made her not a descendant of Jeconiah (Who was one of Solomon's descendants) but it also made her exempt from the curse as she was from a different line. So why is Joseph mentioned in the blood line (Matthew 1:1-16) of Jesus? This was one of your questions that I answered twice already. 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. However, through blood He is a descendant of David through Mary's side. He fulfills the Messianic Prophecies from both sides. 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. 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. Let me put it in a series of steps to help you understand. (1.) God cursed the line of Solomon, saying that never will any of his descendants sit upon the throne. * If you dispute this, then you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. (2.) Joseph was of the Line of Solomon. (3.) Therefore, He couldn't have been Jesus's biological father. Rather, He is an adopted father. Now, let me explain it in Mary's case to show why SHE is Jesus's one and only parent. (1.) David had two sons. (2.) One was Solomon, one was Nathan (Matthew 1:6-7) (Luke 3:31-32) (3.) Solomon's line was cursed, therefore the Messiah would have to come from Nathan's line. (4.) Mary is of the line of Nathan (Who is David's Son) (5.) Jesus was born from Mary. (6.) Therefore, Jesus is still of David's "seed" however it is through Mary's line. BY BLOOD. Does this make sense to you? Jews trace legal lineage through the Male Line, open up a History Book.