If I were a jerk – which of course I am, as anyone who’s heard my interminable rants on a certain movie trilogy can attest – I would point out that only 2 of the 4 gospels tell the Nativity story or contend that Jesus was not Joseph’s natural son. One can be a Xtian without believing that part of the myth.
That’d be Matthew. Wiki is the first Google hit; there are tons more.
Au contraire. The tangent was started by you asserting that only patrilineal descendants could be “seed of David” – IOW, that “seed of David” = “son of David,” not “child of David.” The question of whether IYO Jesus meets the criteria of the OT Messiah doesn’t interest me, since I (and virtually every Christian you’ll meet) will come to a diametrically opposed conclusion than virtually every Jew you’d meet. I don’t find arguments about what the OT said about Jesus, without reference to the NT – y’know, the books about Jesus – to be particularly helpful or interesting. And the bottom line is that your opinion that “seed of David” must mean “son” (not child) of David because that’s the Jewish view. I thank you for answering the question, but – surprise! – I don’t consider myself bound by the Jewish view.
A problem for Jewish people, sure. Not a problem for Christians.
For Jews, you mean. And you’re right; Christian answers don’t work for Jews – another shocker. But we are not required to interpret the phrase “seed of David” as strictly as you insist on doing. We can interpret “seed of David” to mean “child of David” (through Jesus’s mother) or adopted son of David (through Joseph) or through the same ultimate “seed” that made David and Jesus and all men. Again, as far as the NT is concerned, Jesus is clearly accepted as “seed of David” and referred to as such several times. So don’t bother restating an argument that is limited in scope to the OT; Christians do not consider themselves wholly bound by the OT, nor do they concede that Jews interpret it 100% correctly.
Jewish law, check. And I take it you gather that Christian belief is otherwise, and that Christians do not consider the Jews to be correct in this regard? Tell me if any of this comes as a shock to you.
What, do you think I just make this stuff up? Here’s the Clark Commentary, and that link provides others. The NIV Study Bible says (in part): “THere are several differences between Luke’s geneology and Matthew’s . . . A likely explanation is that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father) while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus’s blood relative).” Jamieson’s Commentary notes that the matter is open to interpretation, but swings to the Marian camp on the basis that that view “is attended with fewest difficulties, and is the best supported.” Your contention that there is “an overwhelming scholarly consensus” to the contrary will have to go unchallenged, since you’ve presented me with no cites to look at. And don’t break a sweat to do so if you don’t want to – at the end of the day it’s neither here nor there. I don’t really care if Jesus was the son of David through Joseph, Mary, neither or both, and neither does anybody I know. It’s an issue that would be important to Jews; it’s of almost zero importance to Christians.
I didn’t understand your argument to be limited to the OT. Inasmuch as it is, I happily leave you to it. As I said, it’s not of much interest to me, as a Christian who is not awaiting the Jewish Messiah.
Good point. There is nothing crucial about the Virgin Birth. It’s not even mentioned outside those two Nativities. Paul seems completely unaware of it. Mark implies an adoptionist Christology. John doesn’t mention it. It’s not a Messianic requirement. It could easily be accepted as just a little mythmaking after the fact.
It’s true that only Matthew and Luke tell the nativity story, but it is also clear that all four gospels represent and accept Jesus as the Son of God. Now, one could take the view that Jesus was a son of God as all men are sons of God, but, as far as Christianity is concerned, that would be a minority view, to say the least. Since most Christians believe Jesus’ divinity was due to his status as THE Son of God (as in “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”), and since belief in Jesus’ divinity is a central tenet of most Christian faiths, you would find that many (I confidently predict most) Christians would not agree that “one can be a Christian wihtout believing that part of the myth”. This takes us directly into the morass of “who’s a Christian/who isn’t” where I won’t tread any further, since it’s pointless and borderline disrepectful – but it is worth noting that when you’re talking about the divinity of Christ you are talking about the nitty gritty of Christian belief, and most would agree it would be hard to dispense with that part and still be identifiably Christian. It becomes a matter of defining the term so broadly it loses any meaning.
What? The entire dramatic conversion of St. Paul to Christianity is premised upon his sudden realization that Jesus is the Son of God – the Messiah. Surely you were aware of this?
The whole thing would be accepted as just a little mythmaking after the fact. And frequently is.
Belay my last, Dio; I misread your post. Which means it’s time to go to bed. 
Your Wiki link claims that there is “speculation” that Matthew was trying to evangelize Jews. Your claim was that he “had a mission” to evangelize Jews. Claiming to know what his “mission” was is rather extraordinary since the author’s very identity is completely unknown, much less his motivation. What is known is that the Gospel was written outside of Palestine, after the destruction of JJerusalem (and whatever Jewish Jesus movement which might have remained along with it). By 80 CE, when Matthew was written, Christianity was almost entirely a Gentile movement. Matthew’s Gospel was also written in a gentile language, quoted from the Greek Septuagint and contains some vicious anti-Jewish polemic. Matthew shows a little more knowledge of Judaism than the others and casts his Jesus in a slightly more Jewish context. That has led to some speculation that matthew may have been a Hellenistic Jew but making grand declarations about his “mission” is completely unwarranted by the evidence.
Excuse me, but that post procedeed from a discussion started by your “objection to Christianity” post, in which you erroneously espoused a position that the heir to the throne of David can be adopted.
It’s not my opinion, it’s objective fact.
If it doesn’t interest you then why did you jump into the thread to discuss it?
What a strange position to take. Do you believe that the authors of the NT had some kind of special knowledge about the authorial intent of those who wrote the Hebrew Bible? Did they really know more than those who actually wrote the Old Testament?
Since the Jewish view is the view of those who actually wrote the prophecies, they are kind of the only views that matter.
You’ve got that backwards. Conflicts between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is of no concern at all to Jewish theology. It’s the Christians that have the problems.
The Christian answers don’t work period. They don’t resolve the conflicts.
Sure, you can do that. But then you’re saying the Old Testament is wrong. The way the Messiah is defined in the NT is completely different from how he’s defined in the OT.
This doesn’t even make sense. You’re saying that Jews are “incorrect” about their own laws of succession? Isn’t that just a little bit arrogant?
I’m well aware of the apologetics. Apologetics are not scholarship. I notice your quited cite makes no effort to support the contention about Luke’s genealogy going through mary, nor does it address any of the other problems I pointed out with that suggestion.
For the record, the phrase “Son of God” in Hebrew idiom was often an honorific used for kings. It wasn’t taken literally. Within the framework of the culture Jesus lived in, Jews who spoke of the “Son of God” were talking about the heir to David’s throne but it was not meant to imply any literal divine descendency.
As mentioned already, she absolutely consented to what was “announced”. That is why she is held up as the example of trusting in God’s will regardless of uncertainty about how it will all turn out.
Where does either story say she consented? She was never given a choice in either Gospel.
I think the biggest part of their objection would be that there word “myth.”
Well, I dispense with it, and I am a Christian.
I guess it depends on how you interpret “Let it be done to me as you say”.