tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7919732590249817407..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The mechanics of the virgin birthRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43445735684046022162018-12-03T16:05:01.507-05:002018-12-03T16:05:01.507-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
"I read the abs...Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"I read the abstract, is enough for the case."</i></b> <br /><br />No, it isn't. You didn't even attempt to show how the abstract supposedly supports your argument, much less how the article does.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"So scientifically there was a probability of about 50% of Joseph's paternity being identified by resemblance with Jesus. The alternative would be virtually 0%."</i></b> <br /><br />I cited studies indicating that the probability would be forty-something. You've chosen to put the numbers in terms of "about 50%", which is ambiguous enough to be taken as either a probability or an improbability. It's an improbability. That undermines your argument.<br /><br />And since the problem you appealed to is unlikely to have occurred, there's no need for the solution you're offering for that problem.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Because to a Jew that was evidence that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and therefore had sexual relations with Mary and they were lying about the virgin birth."</i></b> <br /><br />In a context in which the son is expected to be a biological descendant of David through his father, the father and mother are engaged and living in a culture that places so much value on the mother carrying on the father's line through reproduction, the son is supposed to be highly similar to us in his humanity (Hebrews 2:17), etc., a mechanism for the virgin birth that makes use of the man's body to produce the child makes a lot of sense. I've argued that it's preferable to the alternatives. If an ancient Jew hadn't thought much about the issues involved or hadn't thought about them correctly, God wouldn't be obligated to accommodate him. The same can be said of other aspects of Christianity that many ancient Jews found objectionable (the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy, the cross, etc.).<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Not in the sense of a special intervention of God. It was enough that things would follow the natural course. The probability of Jesus look like another man of Palestine that was not his biological father was virtually 0%."</i></b> <br /><br />Your view has God intervening from the start by creating the relevant material ex nihilo. My view has God transferring the relevant material. A later intervention wouldn't be needed under my view if God chose what material to transfer with the knowledge that it wouldn't lead to too much resemblance between Joseph and Jesus.<br /><br />Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion about how the ex nihilo miracle would be of a higher nature than the transfer miracle. In that sense, your view involves more intervention of God than mine does.<br /><br />And I don't know where you're getting the "virtually 0%" figure. Any appearance of Jesus that would be viewed as suspicious in relation to any of the men involved would have to be avoided under your scenario. God would have to take all of those restrictions into account. God could do that, but it would be an additional factor involved under your scenario.<br /><br />Even if your objection were valid, you've given us no reason to think it outweighs the arguments I've provided for a transfer view of the virgin birth. As I said earlier in response to Soli Deo Gloria, the ex nihilo view of the virgin birth could be better in some contexts while being worse overall. You haven't even addressed most of my arguments for the transfer view. Objecting that my view requires that God intervene to prevent Jesus from looking too much like Joseph isn't much of an objection.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91198892701470122302018-12-03T16:04:22.659-05:002018-12-03T16:04:22.659-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
"Okay, but as y...Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Okay, but as you know, the full understanding of a prophecy happens in its fulfillment and not when it is produced."</i></b> <br /><br />You haven't shown that there's anything in the fulfillment that precludes what the original context implied. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to demonstrate that we should change our interpretation of the prophecies in light of their fulfillment. You haven't met that burden of proof. The original Old Testament context I appealed to still applies. The patriarchal context of the Old Testament favors my view that Jesus' biological Davidic descent comes primarily from Joseph.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The New Testament focus on Joseph is due to be the legal successor to the throne of David, non-biological successor."</i></b> <br /><br />That's something you're asserting without having demonstrated it. You said that Matthew's genealogy refers to a non-biological succession, but it doesn't follow that Luke's genealogy and every other passage focusing on Joseph is about a non-biological descent. To the contrary, as I documented, the New Testament repeats the Old Testament theme of biological descent. If both Testaments refer to biological Davidic descent, and the New Testament focuses on Joseph when discussing the fulfillment of the prophecies, it makes more sense to think that biological descent comes through Joseph than to think that it doesn't.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84811995570542743082018-12-03T14:55:53.587-05:002018-12-03T14:55:53.587-05:00I beg your pardon. That should read, '...the r...I beg your pardon. That should read, '...the recessive (rather than the dominant) copies (alleles) of the relevant genes...'Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61491604842402184012018-12-03T14:35:44.924-05:002018-12-03T14:35:44.924-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade
"I read the abstract, ...Conhecereis a Verdade<br /><br />"I read the abstract, is enough for the case. So scientifically there was a probability of about 50% of Joseph's paternity being identified by resemblance with Jesus. The alternative would be virtually 0%." <br /><br />What part of the abstract says that? Here's the url to the abstract you cited:<br /><br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228656456_Differential_facial_resemblance_of_young_children_to_their_parents_Who_do_children_look_like_moreEpistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87994602882347161002018-12-03T13:05:17.735-05:002018-12-03T13:05:17.735-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade,
I'm not feeling the fo...Conhecereis a Verdade,<br /><br />I'm not feeling the force of your 'resemblance' objection. As others have pointed out, on Jason's transference view (which I do not hold) God could have seen to it that none of Joseph's traits appeared in Jesus. This would be child's play for God.<br /><br />Furthermore, and which also has been pointed out to an extent, on the ex nihilo view (my own view and, I gather, yours too), God may well have arranged things so that Jesus did not *accidentally* resemble Joseph or anybody else who might be mistaken for Jesus' biological father and thus giving cause to foster unnecessary suspicion. Not only that but, on both the transference and ex nihilo views, if God had wanted to see to it that Jesus resembled neither Joseph *nor* Mary, in order to keep the incarnate one free from resembling *any* other human, then He could quite easily have done so. <br /><br />Take the eyes as one example. For the most part, eye colour is influenced by two main genes. If both Mary and Joseph had dark coloured eyes, then God could have seen to it that Jesus recieved the recessive (rather than the dominant) copies of the relevant alleles (one from Joseph and one from Mary; or one ex nihilo and one from Mary) to produce the recessive phenotype necessary for Him to have lighter coloured eyes.<br /><br />Of course, my point is only that your 'resemblance' objection seems to carry no force at all. Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15619228719697703502018-12-03T11:52:11.251-05:002018-12-03T11:52:11.251-05:00Jason,
This is my last message on this. Although...Jason, <br /><br />This is my last message on this. Although I disagree with this, I appreciate your work and agree with many things you write.<br /><br />"But the patriarchal nature of the culture that produced the prophecies and the New Testament focus on Joseph in the relevant contexts suggest that the biological descent from David comes primarily from Joseph, not Mary."<br /><br />Okay, but as you know, the full understanding of a prophecy happens in its fulfillment and not when it is produced. The New Testament focus on Joseph is due to be the legal successor to the throne of David, non-biological successor.<br /><br />"You haven't demonstrated that sons usually have the relevant resemblance to their biological father. You also haven't told us whether you even read the article whose abstract you quoted earlier."<br /><br />I read the abstract, is enough for the case.<br />So scientifically there was a probability of about 50% of Joseph's paternity being identified by resemblance with Jesus. The alternative would be virtually 0%.<br /><br />"Why would that resemblance be evidence against the virgin birth?"<br /><br />Because to a Jew that was evidence that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and therefore had sexual relations with Mary and they were lying about the virgin birth.<br /><br />"Under your own view, God "provided that Jesus had no resemblance" to the men in question."<br /><br />Not in the sense of a special intervention of God. It was enough that things would follow the natural course. The probability of Jesus look like another man of Palestine that was not his biological father was virtually 0%. 0% vs. 50% in case of your proposed mechanism.<br />Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4476012983398477002018-12-02T22:06:41.646-05:002018-12-02T22:06:41.646-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
"All means of D...Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"All means of Davidic biological ancestry can be solved through Mary."</i></b> <br /><br />As I explained earlier, since the New Testament focuses on Joseph when discussing Davidic ancestry, it makes more sense for the biological ancestry from David to be from Joseph than from Mary. I think Mary was a descendant of David as well, for reasons I've explained in the comments section of the other thread Steve linked in his initial post. But the patriarchal nature of the culture that produced the prophecies and the New Testament focus on Joseph in the relevant contexts suggest that the biological descent from David comes primarily from Joseph, not Mary.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"It is empirically known that in most cases the son have similarities with the parents."</i></b> <br /><br />You haven't demonstrated that sons usually have the relevant resemblance to their biological father. You also haven't told us whether you even read the article whose abstract you quoted earlier.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2242586_Do_Babies_Resemble_Their_Fathers_More_Than_Their_Mothers_A_Failure_to_Replicate_Christenfeld_and_Hill_1995" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> an article you can read online for free. In it, we're told:<br /><br />"It is particularly important to note that while the degree of correct association of parents<br />with children is anywhere between 7 and 14% higher than chance, it remains surprisingly<br />poor. In all cases, non-identification exceeds 50%....Indeed, in Christenfeld and<br />Hill’s data correct identification of fathers from infant faces occurred only in 49.2 percent of cases. In the present study, the mean rate of correct identification over all three ages of<br />children is 44.7 percent. In both studies, misidentification of fathers is around 50 percent."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247110590_Parental_resemblance_in_1-yr-olds_and_the_Gaussian_curve" rel="nofollow">Another article you can read online for free</a> reports:<br /><br />"In sum, three studies have assessed whether young children resemble their parents and if so, whether they resemble one parent more. The only consistent finding is that judges perform poorly, selecting the correct parent at a rate only 1.1 to 1.3 times higher than chance….The overall probability [in the first part of this study] of guessing the biological parent (.45) was 1.37 times higher than the probability expected by chance (.33)… The overall probability of guessing the biological parent [in the second part of this study] was .49, which is 1.47 times higher than chance"<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"I have already said that the resemblance between Joseph and Jesus is not inconsistent with the virgin birth, but that would be evidence against the virgin birth."</i></b> <br /><br />Why would that resemblance be evidence against the virgin birth?<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"But if you add in your theory that God in addition to transferring biological material from Joseph, also provided that Jesus had no resemblance to Joseph, then my objection fails. But these are ad hoc assumptions that you add to the theory to solve possible objections. It's pure speculation."</i></b> <br /><br />No, it's something your own view of the virgin birth assumes. You're arguing that God would choose one mechanism for the virgin birth over another in order to avoid having Jesus resemble Joseph. To be consistent, you'd also have to maintain that God avoided giving Jesus too much of a resemblance to any other man Mary would be suspected of having been sexually involved with. Under your own view, God "provided that Jesus had no resemblance" to the men in question.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29664531484908532132018-12-02T21:40:33.034-05:002018-12-02T21:40:33.034-05:00Since family resemblance is quite variable, it doe...Since family resemblance is quite variable, it doesn't even require God to make an exception in this case.<br /><br />BTW, you have a bad habit of fighting tooth and nail on issues that aren't all-important. You need to prioritize and stop acting like everything is a fight to the death. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24357609462397998412018-12-02T20:59:32.065-05:002018-12-02T20:59:32.065-05:00Jason,
All means of Davidic biological ancestry c...Jason,<br /><br />All means of Davidic biological ancestry can be solved through Mary. <br /><br />I have already said that the resemblance between Joseph and Jesus is not inconsistent with the virgin birth, but that would be evidence against the virgin birth. Evidence is not the same as proof. It is empirically known that in most cases the son have similarities with the parents. <br /><br />But if you add in your theory that God in addition to transferring biological material from Joseph, also provided that Jesus had no resemblance to Joseph, then my objection fails. But these are ad hoc assumptions that you add to the theory to solve possible objections. It's pure speculation.<br />Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12803700065415451332018-12-02T20:29:17.042-05:002018-12-02T20:29:17.042-05:00Piggybacking off of what Jason said, Jesus would&#...Piggybacking off of what Jason said, Jesus would've have looked differently depending on which of Joseph's sperm God used for Jesus' conception. Spermatogenesis employs a specialized process of cell division (i.e. meiosis) which <i>uniquely</i> distributes chromosomes among sperm. <br /><br />(For that matter, the same goes for ovum. Depending on which of Mary's eggs God used, Jesus could've looked differently too.)<br /><br />The uptake is Jesus could've resembled Joseph a lot or a little depending on the sperm God employed. We simply don't know. <br /><br />Yet you're acting like Jesus would've been the spitting image of Joseph (or near enough).Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48671663206629400662018-12-02T20:19:04.920-05:002018-12-02T20:19:04.920-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
"Your great co...Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:<br /><br /> <b><i>"Your great concern is how Christ is of Davidic descent. The names that appear in the genealogies are not necessarily consanguineous ascendants of Jesus. Genealogies have different functions and own rules. For exemple, if you understand that Matthew's geneology is a legal geneology, of those who are entitled to the throne of David, you have your problem solved, without the need for Jesus to have a biological relationship with Joseph."</i></b> <br /><br />I've given reasons for supporting the transfer view other than the Davidic ancestry issue. You can't refer to Davidic ancestry as my "great concern", then claim that I "have my problem solved" after you've addressed Davidic ancestry.<br /><br />And you haven't even addressed Davidic ancestry adequately. The Biblical documents don't just address the subject by means of genealogies. They address it by other means as well. I've given some examples.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The only thing I am defending is that a son has similarities with the biological father and the physiognomic resemblance is an indicator of paternity, as it is done in certain scientific areas."</i></b> <br /><br />No, your position requires that you establish more than that, as I explained in my last response to you. You have to address the fact that a resemblance between Joseph and Jesus isn't inconsistent with a virgin birth to begin with. And the relevant similarities between a father and a son need to be shown to exist a majority of the time. Furthermore, you have to explain why we should limit ourselves to that normal course of events rather than thinking that God would give Jesus a different appearance than he'd have in the normal course of events. As I explained, under your own view of the virgin birth, God would be giving Jesus a certain appearance and avoiding other appearances he could have been given.<br /><br />I don't know if you've even read the article whose abstract you quoted, but what you've quoted from that abstract doesn't even come close to establishing what you need to establish.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39890110887889151692018-12-02T20:15:04.860-05:002018-12-02T20:15:04.860-05:00"The only thing I am defending is that a son ..."The only thing I am defending is that a son has similarities with the biological father and the physiognomic resemblance is an indicator of paternity, as it is done in certain scientific areas. This is perfectly founded."<br /><br />1. I wouldn't say "perfectly founded". That seems to be stretching the conclusion! I'd say there's a basis, but (as Jason and Steve and I have already pointed out) there are several other variables to take into consideration in Jason's transfer view and Jesus looking like Joseph. <br /><br />2. Also, "similarities with the biological father" doesn't get you to "Jesus was the spitting image of Joseph". That's simply unknown.<br /><br />3. Besides, "similarities" is so vague. Every human has certain "similarities" with every other human.<br /><br />4. It could be Jesus looked 51% like Joseph but 49% like Mary on Jason's transfer view. So Jesus looked "more" like Joseph than Mary. But what would that prove? Not much as far as I can see.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24771902794601200632018-12-02T19:41:07.247-05:002018-12-02T19:41:07.247-05:001. Assuming the paper is reliable (e.g. representa...1. Assuming the paper is reliable (e.g. representative sample size, objective methodology), which seems debatable given how the abstract is written, at the very best all it amounts to is kids tend to look more like their fathers than their mothers. That's hardly conclusive. <br /><br />2. Anecdotally, I know people who are their biological parents' children, but they look nothing like their father. Anecdotes don't prove, on average, what tends to happen, but they do prove they <i>can</i> happen, and indeed it doesn't seem entirely uncommon, which is all that's needed in this case.<br /><br />3. In addition, Steve, Jason, and I have anticipated the conclusion of such a paper anyway. We've already answered potential objections that this kind of study would show. For example, this study measures kids from birth to 6 years old. However, I already pointed out that Jesus as a kid may have looked different than Jesus as an adult. <br /><br />4. Here's another example. My sister has a son, i.e. I have a nephew, who at birth and in fact up to a few years old didn't look like his parents, but he did look like me! It became a sort of joke among our relatives because apparently I used to look like my mom's brother when I was a kid. How is it that the sisters in our family seem to have sons who look like their brothers?! (My mom is of a superstitious mind and thought it's because she was worried about her brother when she was pregnant with me. And my sister seems inclined to think along similar lines, at least in the back of her mind, because she was worried about me at the time as I had been living far away from her.) By the way, today, as an adult, I no longer look like my uncle, and my nephew looks less and less like me every day.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38900862432458695522018-12-02T19:02:02.726-05:002018-12-02T19:02:02.726-05:00The only thing I am defending is that a son has si...The only thing I am defending is that a son has similarities with the biological father and the physiognomic resemblance is an indicator of paternity, as it is done in certain scientific areas. This is perfectly founded.<br />.<br /><br />Facial phenotypic similarity between a father and a child is one possible paternity indicator....We found that, at all ages, children resemble both their parents more than would be expected by chance.... For boys, an inversion occurs and they resemble their fathers more between 2 and 3 years of age...<br /><br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228656456_Differential_facial_resemblance_of_young_children_to_their_parents_Who_do_children_look_like_more<br /><br />Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43812879679201747592018-12-02T17:59:46.997-05:002018-12-02T17:59:46.997-05:00"What does that have to do with the context o..."What does that have to do with the context of that passage? Comparing that verse with genealogies is absurd."<br /><br />To establish the rudimentary distinction between knowing somebody by reputation and knowing somebody by sight. <br /><br />"The carpenter does a public service, it was natural that he was known by many people and not a legend of the first-century Palestinian."<br /><br />No one said anything about a legend. <br /><br />"How do you know they did not know him by sight?"<br /><br />How do you know they did?<br /><br />There's the year when Jesus was born (c. 6-4 BC). There's whenever Joseph died. There's the period of his public ministry (c. 30-33 AD). And there's the date of Matthew and Luke (c. 60s). <br /><br />"Based on unwarranted assumptions and guesses, you can defend whatever you want."<br /><br />I appreciate your self-indictment. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24027877020636175292018-12-02T17:34:27.230-05:002018-12-02T17:34:27.230-05:00What does that have to do with the context of that...What does that have to do with the context of that passage? Comparing that verse with genealogies is absurd. The carpenter does a public service, it was natural that he was known by many people and not a legend of the first-century Palestinian. How do you know they did not know him by sight?<br /><br />Based on unwarranted assumptions and guesses, you can defend whatever you want.<br />Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39627339152336754452018-12-02T17:25:01.758-05:002018-12-02T17:25:01.758-05:00Knowing someone by sight and knowing somewhat by r...Knowing someone by sight and knowing somewhat by reputation are two different things. My father used to tell me colorful stories about his older relatives, but I don't know what they look like. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82825263729462668492018-12-02T15:16:35.155-05:002018-12-02T15:16:35.155-05:00"At least those Jews knew the carpenter. Mary..."At least those Jews knew the carpenter. Mary and the brothers of Jesus also certainly knew Joseph ..."<br /><br />Equivocal. There's a difference between knowing about someone and knowing them by sight. For instance, Matthew and Luke both give genealogies. Does that mean they knew Christ's ancestors by sight? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25862218673918037692018-12-02T15:08:30.986-05:002018-12-02T15:08:30.986-05:00Your great concern is how Christ is of Davidic des...Your great concern is how Christ is of Davidic descent. The names that appear in the genealogies are not necessarily consanguineous ascendants of Jesus. Genealogies have different functions and own rules. For exemple, if you understand that Matthew's geneology is a legal geneology, of those who are entitled to the throne of David, you have your problem solved, without the need for Jesus to have a biological relationship with Joseph.<br /><br />Matthew exhibited the legal order, by naming Solomon immediately after David, he attends, not to the people whose regular lineage, according to the flesh, Christ derived his birth, but the way in which he descends from Solomon and other kings, in order to be his legal successor, in whose hands God "would establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Sam. 7:13).Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84897910303093252222018-12-02T14:03:21.642-05:002018-12-02T14:03:21.642-05:00Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
"Why would God ...Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Why would God choose the most misleading mechanism when he could do it differently?"</i></b> <br /><br />Again, a resemblance between Joseph and Jesus isn't inconsistent with a virgin birth. But if God wanted to accommodate a misconception on the subject, there are other factors that need to be addressed before your conclusion would be justified.<br /><br />Do children, or men in particular, usually have enough of a physical resemblance to their biological father to lead people to conclude that a biological relationship is probable? Do you have any evidence that there's such a resemblance most of the time? A child could look a lot like his mother, but only a little like his father. Or a lot like his father, but only a little like his mother. He could look a lot like both parents. Or not have any significant resemblance to either. And so on. Do you have any evidence as to how often the scenario you're appealing to occurs? Where's the evidence that the situation you're objecting to would occur a majority of the time in the normal course of these biological relationships?<br /><br />And since we aren't just considering the normal course of events here, since this is a context in which God is highly involved and performing what would commonly be considered miracles, why should we think he would leave the events in question to their normal course? Even under the alternative to my view that you're proposing, God presumably would ensure that Jesus not only doesn't look significantly similar to Joseph, but also doesn't look significantly similar to any other man Mary could be thought to have been sexually involved with. If God is going to choose one physical appearance for Jesus over another under an ex nihilo scenario, why can't he do the same under a transfer scenario? Jesus could be biologically related to Joseph, yet have little enough outward resemblance to Joseph for their biological relationship to not be assumed on the basis of Jesus' appearance.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"And Jesus having two fathers, one according to the flesh and another according to the divine nature, is also problematic in my opinion."</i></b> <br /><br />Even if you think Mary is wrong about Joseph's relationship with Jesus in Luke 2:48, what about Luke 2:33? What about the inclusion of Jesus and Joseph in the genealogies? Christians ought to affirm that Joseph is Jesus' father in <i>some</i> sense. You object to a fatherhood "according to the flesh", but Romans 1:3 and other passages do use that or similar language. Luke 1:32 refers to "his father David". Etc. And given the New Testament's emphasis on Davidic descent through Joseph (Matthew 1:16, 1:20, Luke 1:27, 2:4, 3:23), a relationship with David through Joseph makes more sense of the relevant passages.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The angel should have said to Joseph: ...because what is conceived in her is from you by virtue of Holy Spirit. She will give birth to your son... Matthew 1:20-21"</i></b> <br /><br />As if the transfer view denies the involvement of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Since that passage in Matthew not only doesn't mention any material taken from Joseph, but also doesn't mention any taken from Mary, do you exclude Mary's participation in that context as well?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19198735290352217702018-12-02T13:50:33.718-05:002018-12-02T13:50:33.718-05:00"Were there? Mary and Joseph became retroacti..."Were there? Mary and Joseph became retroactively famous after Jesus became famous. Assuming that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry, Joseph is only posthumously famous"<br /><br />"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56<br /><br />At least those Jews knew the carpenter. Mary and the brothers of Jesus also certainly knew Joseph ...Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73718689720168748452018-12-02T13:12:16.151-05:002018-12-02T13:12:16.151-05:00The aging process can also affect family resemblan...The aging process can also affect family resemblance, in either direction. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5738915733065271152018-12-02T13:08:38.690-05:002018-12-02T13:08:38.690-05:00"The apostles and disciples recognized Jesus ..."The apostles and disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah."<br /><br />But how many knew Joseph by sight?<br /><br />"there were many people who knew Joseph."<br /><br />Were there? Mary and Joseph became retroactively famous after Jesus became famous. Assuming that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry, Joseph is only posthumously famous. <br /><br />Many of Joseph's older relatives were dead by the time Jesus began his public ministry. <br /><br />"The belief in the virgin birth goes back to before Matthew and Luke. It was not invented by them."<br /><br />Red herring. The point is that hardly any of the readers knew Joseph by sight. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25350767475301850282018-12-02T13:08:17.173-05:002018-12-02T13:08:17.173-05:00Family resemblance is quite variable. I don't ...Family resemblance is quite variable. I don't look much like my parents. I look more like my maternal grandfather than my own father. My mother doesn't look much like her parents or a sister. One of her brothers bears a striking resemblance to their father, but another brother has a very different appearance.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39148443287528292042018-12-02T12:42:45.638-05:002018-12-02T12:42:45.638-05:00You’re arguing if Jesus resembled Joseph, then tha...You’re arguing if Jesus resembled Joseph, then that would have made people more likely to doubt the virgin conception. However, suppose Jesus didn’t resemble Joseph. Would that have made people more likely to believe the virgin conception?Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.com