Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's

In our times, it probably doesn't. But back then, these two meanings were connected. Every unmarried woman was supposed to be a virgin and it could be no other way except if she were a woman of low morality. So it seems to me that these two words are identical.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but the New Testament was first written in Greek. So whatever is included in the Greek version, it is exactly what the writer meant to say. In the first chapter, verses 22-23 Matthew writes: "All this took place for the word of the Lord to be fullfilled through the prophet who said: behold the virgin who will conceive in her womb and bear a son and he will be called Emmanouel, which means God is with us". Since Matthew wrote in Greek, he certainly knew how to translate words from one language to another. So he obviously used the word virgin because that is what the prophet wanted to say.

The issue is whether or not Jesus is related to the line of David?

What exactly don't you understand? Should I unclude the Greek text too? I would be happy to but I don see the point unless someone can actually read it. I understand that you do not have to consider my translation accurate but your argument concerning Matthew's knowledge of Greek does not stand. Who can assure me that those who have translated the New Testimony in your language have done such a great job? Maybe Matthew didn't have the ability to express himself in his own language either, maybe no evangelist could, so why should we believe in the accuracy of anything written! That does not make any sense. If we do not take it for granted that the writer knew what he wanted to write and how to write it, there is no point in participating in this conversation. By the way, I would find it interesting to know the religion of the participants, provided they do not have a problem with that. I'm only asking because it might give us all another aspect of what everyone thinks.

Do you at least believe that the original text included exactly what the prophet meant to say?

How do I know that there was actually a mistake there or anywhere else, due to translation? I am refering to random mistakes. Because I am certain that every time there was a rupture in the Christian Church, those who created a new church would change some things on purpose, in order to facilitate their cause. If you believe that there is no way these texts can tell us anything why are we having this conversation?

I suppose that you do not have to be eristic in your answers nor should you cut my phrases the way it suits you in order to say something clever. In case you haven't noticed I am not the one who brought up the subject of the virginity of Christ's Mother, so do not blame me for not focusing on the original subject. If you regret having been involved in this conversation, simply stop doing that. I feel that I should also point out that there is no reason for me to believe that you are participating in this conversation in order for me to profit and find answers. Please keep in mind that a faith is a deep truth beyond knowledge. Therefore, the combination of facts and experience (through tradition and personal life) is what makes us understand - to the extent that is necessary or to the extent that we can - things that concern God and approch the truth. As far as I am concerned, the fact that the four evangelists do not describe the exact same facts consists of hard evidence that this entire thing was not at all set up. Because if it were, they would have sut down and would have found a way to make everything add up just perfectly. But that was not the case. They simply gave us the facts the way they had percepted the truth and it is human nature to describe the same thing a little bit differently, in a way that emphasizes what seemed more important to each one of them. And believe me, my misconceptions are many, but the reason why I chose to participate is because I want to know how people think, people who do not live next door and who do not have the same opportunities as me to study and approach the subject. We probably do not share the same religion, regerdless of the fact that we are discussing facts that concern Jesus Christ and that we might say that we believe in him. The differences between Christians all over the world are vast. So, in order to correct our misconceptions we should address priests and theologians. Do not worry, the burden of my misconception is not on your shoulders.

Of course they did! That's why I mentioned women of low morality. I have a question: How could you be convinced that a woman back then was or was not a virgin. And please do not tell me that this is the point of the discussion (that it cannot be proven) because since you are participating, there must be a way you could be convinced but obviously no one provided it.

quote:

---

... Ah, but it is. I can leave no misconception un-shot-at.

---

I insist that it is not and I explained the reasons pretty well. I hate to feel that I am adding to your ego. You seem to believe that you know much. Keep in mind that this is one of the greatest misconceptions.
[To all those who are interested] Please proceed with the original subject, if you wish to. It has been a long time since anyone shared their thoughts on it and the truth is that I want to see where all this discussion will lead.

Good for you. I see that you are sticking to the subject... Anyway... I'll call it a day.
I'll probably see you around.

I cannot believe what you are saying! This is basic knowledge, like the first grade! The whole piont is that the people of Israel never realised that the kingdom the Messiah would bring was a spiritual one. They expected a material king. Instead they get a spiritual king who wants to free them of their biggest enemy, sin, but they fail to figure it out. Jesus is a God of love. He came quietly into this world by taking a human form and took the leadership in order for the world to have forgiveness. The true salvation of a nation is spiritual and not material.