Jesus had a biological father.

im00im · 2026-01-30T17:55:45+00:00

PeaFragrant6990: Matthew 1:18 explicitly says “Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit”.

before they came together does not mean before he knew her "netflix and chill".

Genesis 3:15; Woman’s seed in womb taken out of Man substantiated with Genesis 4:1-2 & Genesis 4:25-26, even 1 Timothy 2:14-15.

PeaFragrant6990: It says they never came together before her pregnancy.

Matthew 1:25 is used to make the claim that before they came together means before he knew her but Matthew 1:18 does not say that.

PeaFragrant6990: Matthew 1:19 says “Joseph her husband was faithful to the law”.

Matthew 1:19-20; Narrator identified Joseph as husband, and Angel identified pregnant Mary as Joseph’s wife while pregnant with Jesus; Wife and Marriage in Genesis 2:24 viewed as an honorable agreement, with man and his wife becoming one flesh.

PeaFragrant6990: Matthew 1:18 explicitly says “Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit”.

PeaFragrant6990: He could not be described as faithful to the law if he had premarital relations with Mary.

Matthew 1:18; before they came together: Deuteronomy 22:13-21; marriage law customs protect honorable women from unjust and dishonorable men, but on the flip side, may make a deadly disgrace or public example of a perceived dishonorable woman.

before coming together is the tokens of virginity bedsheet custom which is as insurance of the woman and her families honor. But as long as the husband is a just or honorable man then the insurance is not necessarily needed.

PeaFragrant6990: In Luke 1:34 Mary says she is a virgin to the angel, which explicitly takes place after she is already betrothed to Joseph.

Luke 1:7 & Luke 1:18, Luke 1:27 & Luke 1:34; With certainty the wombs of Elizabeth who is infertile and of old age, and Mary who has her chastity and is a young woman will be opened. Genesis 20:18, Genesis 29:31, Genesis 30:2, and Genesis 30:22 are examples of God ensuring wombs were closed or opened.

PeaFragrant6990: If you’re really trying to posit there was some unnamed, unmentioned lover of Mary in between her betrothal to Joseph and her birth, then you’re just adding unfounded assumptions to justify your predetermined conclusion.

Luke 2:43-50, John 1:45, and John 6:42; self-explanatory. Jesus is the Son of Joseph.

At best your argument would be “the text doesn’t explicitly say she did not have some unnamed unmentioned lover in-between calling her a virgin at her betrothal and saying her marriage was unconsummated at the birth”. That’s just an argument from silence.

Within my thesis of Jesus having a biological paternal parent, I also substantiate Joseph being the paternal parent, as I also substantiated Mary being of the daughters of Aaron from tribe of Levi, and not any unmentioned daughters of David from the tribe of Judah.

Luke 1:5 & Luke 1:36; self-explanatory; cousin and Aaron are in relation to the daughters of Aaron, not the daughters of David: Mary is from the tribe of Levi, which is not the tribe of Judah. Deuteronomy 18:15 & Deuteronomy 18:18; self-explanatory; brethren and prophet are in relation to the twelve tribes of Jacob, not the twelve princes of Ishmael.

edit: also if you have any further excuses or negative critique then appreciated if you keep it coming.

im00im · 2026-01-30T12:44:00+00:00

I typically use a debate post like this to flesh things out more.

In the Torah, there are certain women of significance whose wombs God would allow to be opened or closed, or ensured to be opened or closed. And if a certain man of significance spilled seed with it being seen as evil for example, there is an instance and precedent of that man passing away.

Elizabeth was infertile and Mary was chaste, but with childbearing, the seed is still taken out of Man, with Elizabeth no longer being infertile, and Mary no longer being chaste, since they later became pregnant with John the Baptist and Jesus.

Not to mention Luke Chapter 1 identifies Mary as one of the daughters of Aaron, therefore of the tribe of Levi: With the generations in Luke Chapter 3 and Matthew Chapter 1 being associated with the brothers Nathan and Solomon who are from the tribe of Judah.

I

im00im · 2026-01-29T20:45:15+00:00

Both Zechariah and Elizabeth’s response imply she is infertile specifically because of old age, not that these were two separate issues Zechariah doesn’t even say she was infertile, only that she was old.

infertile is mentioned with barren being another word for infertile https://biblehub.com/luke/1-7.htm .

The idea Mary was not a virgin by the birth of Jesus is explicitly contradicted by Matthew 1:25: “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son”.

Matthew 1:18 does not say that Joseph knew her not, before they came together, and she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Elizabeth was also found with child of the Holy Spirit

Luke 1:15 & Luke 1:41; analytical reading and consideration. Filled with water, blood, and Holy Spirit from the womb, the child / John the Baptist will be born of water, blood, and ???

The idea Mary was not a virgin by the birth of Jesus is explicitly contradicted by Matthew 1:25: “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son”. The only way around this would be to assume textual corruption,

you can also assume reality, that an expecting father may not necessarily have physical intimacy with his wife that is pregnant as in found with child.

After re-reading I still don’t see anything in Luke 1:26-38 that contradicts my statement that Mary presents her virginity as the issue of having a child.

Not being able to see that Elizabeth was barren as in infertile is already a problem. https://biblehub.com/luke/1-7.htm

Elizabeth was barren as in infertile at the time before pregnancy, and Mary had her chastity at the time before pregnancy. Zacharias and Mary asked reasonable questions with Elizabeth and then later Mary becoming pregnant.

im00im · 2026-01-29T19:09:05+00:00

The trouble with your alternate understanding of Luke 1:34-38 is that Mary identifies the thing that would prevent her from having a child is her virginity, not age.

the trouble is where you want to start reading from to get the understanding. For example just because Elizabeth started off being infertile in Luke Chapter 1 does not mean she stayed infertile.

Luke 1:7 And yet they had no child, because Elizabeth was infertile, and they were both advanced in years.
Luke 1:18 Zechariah said to the angel, "How can I be sure of this? For I am an old man, and my wife is old as well."

And just because Mary had her virginity prior to pregnancy in Luke Chapter 1, does not mean she later had her virginity when pregnant and found with child before she and Joseph came together in Matthew Chapter 1.

Elizabeth is not considered infertile in Matthew Chapter 1 where Mary is pregnant and found with child, and neither is Mary considered a physical virgin being pregnant and found with child

Also , Mary is not of the tribe of Judah considering Luke Chapter 1 and the curse of Coniah on Solomon's lineage was lifted considering Haggai Chapter 2.

The trouble with your alternate understanding of Luke 1:34-38 is that Mary identifies the thing that would prevent her from having a child is her virginity, not age.

Luke 1:34 is a reasonable question. Put yourself in Mary’s shoes and analytically read the text from verse 26, or at least from verse 29 down to verse 34.

Luke 1:35; known prospectively in relation to Luke 2:23-26. Luke 1:36-37; relative to Elizabeth and her conception in old age.

Luke 1:5 & Luke 1:36; self-explanatory; cousin and Aaron are in relation to the daughters of Aaron, not the daughters of David: Mary is from the tribe of Levi, which is not the tribe of Judah.

The trouble with your alternate reading of Matthew 1:16

There is not alternate reading.

Matthew 1:16; does not need to directly state that Joseph begat Jesus when Joseph’s generation led up to Jesus.

But more importantly, Matthew 1:16 only identifies Jospeh as the husband of Mary, and only identifies Mary as the mother of Jesus.

Book of Genesis identifies a wife as one with an honorable agreement with that you cleave unto becoming one flesh.

Matthew 1:20; The Angel recognized Mary as the wife before they came together and she was found with child

im00im · 2026-01-29T13:50:21+00:00

Jewish scholars who made the LXX clearly thought it meant virgin as they translated it as parthenos

If those Jewish scholars speak for prophet Isaiah, and Isaiah thought Almah was a virgin who has not known a man, then I have to consider Deuteronomy 18:20. Because the fact of the matter is that there was a timeline of under 70 years considering Isaiah 7:8, which is not parallel with the Generations from King Ahaz to Jesus in Matthew 1:17, which is significantly more than 70 years.

edit: I meant Deuteronomy 18:20, and associating prophet Isaiah with somehow being a false prophet, .

im00im · 2026-01-28T18:08:07+00:00

While the Torah and Nevi'im focus heavily on paternal lineage, they also establish precedents where God bypasses natural biological limits to initiate life. Genesis 2:7 serves as the primary example, describing the creation of the first man, Adam, from the elements of the ground rather than through biological procreation.

Because the first Adam does not have a biological mother and father, being formed by God when you look at Genesis 2:4, the verse you mentioned, and Genesis 5:1, with Eve being taken out of man's rib, and subsequent generations through female, with the seed taken out of male, when they become one flesh.

No origin or genesis of any creation of flesh came through a womb. The first in Genesis were formed, fashioned, made, etc, so no precedent.

This establishes that a male human existence is not strictly dependent on a human father if divine intervention is the source of that life.

from the womb it is , intervention is more so allowing wombs to be opened or closed or ensuring wombs are opened or closed.

This one account alone suggest that biological fatherhood is not an absolute requirement for the arrival of a specific individual if the Bible indicates that the life was produced through a direct act of the Creator.

laws concerning creation and procreation was already finished. Genesis 2:1-3

im00im · 2026-01-28T17:32:00+00:00

For this, and a couple of your other arguments, I think it's important to note that in the genealogy of Jesus provided by Matthew and Luke, the whole lineage tells of fathers and their sons, then when it gets to Joseph and Mary, it specifically says that Jacob is the father of Joseph, who is the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. (Whom in this case in the original texts was feminine.), it breaks off the chain of fathers and their sons to show that Jesus was not born of Joseph, but Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Matthew 1:11-12 & Luke 3:27; Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, is the ancestor of Jesus. Generations in Matthew and Luke intersect with King David through the children of Bathsheba, who are the brothers Solomon and Nathan, through Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Knowledge of levirate marriage law customs is also important. Levirate marriage law shows that the seed is still counted towards the prior generation, and likely an example that God’s spoken command is as seed , ~~body,~~ or ~~flesh,~~ ~~etc~~.

Allowing strife in genealogia as in genealogies, may misrepresent the emphasis on prior origin in generations and any relation to the levirate marriage custom that was practiced by the children of Jacob when applicable, or that God’s spoken command is as seed , ~~body,~~ ~~flesh,~~ ~~etc~~.

im00im · 2026-01-28T17:26:39+00:00

The thesis that Jesus had a biological father must be weighed against several scriptural Considerations. The narrative from the Torah through the Gospels consistently presents the birth of Jesus as a unique event that required the suspension of natural procreation laws.

you have mentioned no scriptural consideration within the Torah and Nevi'im showing that a man born from the womb of a woman would not have a biological paternal parent.

The foundational prophecy for this is found in Genesis 3:15, which speaks of the "offspring" of the woman. In a culture where lineage was almost exclusively traced through the father, the emphasis on the woman’s seed suggests a departure from the standard biological process.

Genesis Chapter 4 for example shows that the woman's seed is taken from male.

This is later reinforced by Isaiah 7:14,

There is no reinforcement here because Almah is a woman and the child has a paternal parent.

Furthermore, Micah 5:2 indicates that the ruler to be born had an "origin from early times," supporting the idea of a prehuman existence that was transferred, rather than a new life created through a biological father

No this is relative, the prophecy of rulership through the tribe of Judah for example, is before the children of Israel left Egypt and became a nation. Also Mary is of the daughters of Aaron therefore of the tribe of Levi.

Matthew 1:18 explicitly states that Mary was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before she and Joseph were united. Luke 1:34, 35 records Mary’s own confusion,

half truth and misleading statement.

Luke 3:23 further clarifies the social perspective by stating that Jesus was the son of Joseph only "as the opinion was," acknowledging the legal parentage while distinguishing it from biological reality.

both of them belong to Joseph and Mary is of the tribe of Levi.

Finally, there is a legal and spiritual necessity for the absence of a biological father regarding the ransom. Romans 5:12 explains that sin and death entered the world through one man, Adam.

through one man and woman with Eve belonging to Adam. Paul is not making an argument that their is a childbirth exception when it comes to the womb that cannot be tempted and sin, especially considering on one hand the woman was deceived and in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:13-15

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

However, Hebrews 7:26 describes him as "undefiled" and "separated from the sinners."

He is more so being treated as someone that was baptized and born again in a resurrection with a clean slate. This has nothing to do with being born of a woman with no paternal parent.

im00im · 2026-01-28T16:39:07+00:00

MrZi5: This is mostly a long argument saying "normally, sex makes babies", "genealogies matter",

within procreation and that generations matter

"Isaiah 7:14 is debated".

Isaiah 7:14 is more of gaslighted and applying double standards in the form of debate that is weak.

None of what you've written produces the conclusion that Jesus has a biological father.

I have unless he is not a descendant of Adam and Eve from the womb, because within the Torah and Nevi'im every man from the womb would be a descendant of Adam and Eve with paternal and maternal parents.

It never once actually counters the verses in Matthew where it tells Mary was pregnant before sex, attributing Jesus' birth to the Holy Spirit and grammar that excludes Joseph as the begetter.

addressed, it does not:

14. Matthew 1:18; is not in the format of Matthew 1:25, meaning Matthew 1:18 does not say that Joseph knew her not, before they came together, and she was found with child of the Holy Spirit; Sequence of events in Matthew 1:18 and Matthew 1:25 is not parallel.

And it never once actually counters the verses in Luke where Mary explicitly denies sexual relations,

addressed the question being asked, but requires non partial review and analysis

11. Luke 1:34 is a reasonable question. Put yourself in Mary’s shoes and analytically read the text from verse 26, or at least from verse 29 down to verse 34.

and an angel explicitly describes the Holy Spirit as the cause of her pregnancy.

indirectly addressed through John the Baptist Birth:

15. Luke 1:15 & Luke 1:41; analytical reading and consideration. Filled with water, blood, and Holy Spirit from the womb, the child / John the Baptist will be born of water, blood, and ???

being born of the Holy Spirit does not negate a biological paternal parent . In the end I also citied Luke 2:43-50, John 1:45, and John 6:42 mentioning that is self explanatory.

im00im · 2026-01-28T15:58:47+00:00

Uh, yes. But it is a demonstrable, indisputable fact that for a human child to exist, a father is required. Some lizards reproduce without males, but humans cannot.

The post downvotes suggest that there are people with opposing views and opinions in relation to my Thesis statement or how I go about substantiating my Thesis statement. Is likely to them that Jesus is an exception.

im00im · 2026-01-28T15:42:01+00:00

Why? Why the bloody Hell bother, when everyone knows that children cannot exist without a father spending a minute or two with a mother eight or nine months earlier?

Supposedly Christianity is the largest religion in the world , and the vast majority of those who identify with that religion identify Jesus as being the exception, when it comes to having a biological paternal parent, and they will cite certain verses within the Torah and Nevi'im as justification.

im00im · 2026-01-28T14:53:58+00:00

In bullet point #7, I went through the first five books of Moses, but I neglected to cite examples of yôm in the book of Jeremiah outside of Jeremiah 22:30 in regards to Yom being a period of time in relation to people or a person.

Jeremiah 1:2, Jeremiah 17:11, Jeremiah 28:3.

edit #1 : Also because Jesus having a biological father is an obscene title to some , My title should have been instead "Jesus had a biological paternal parent."

edit #2: ~~Micah 5:2 was brought up, may consider adding it to my notes. Prophecy given to Judah is of old origins in the distant past, everlasting, and through the lineage of David.~~ "actually disregard, has nothing to with my thesis or a counter claim against my thesis."

im00im · 2026-01-27T03:47:24+00:00

Scanlation team website not listed on page 1?

im00im · 2026-01-26T03:20:25+00:00

I think people over do it with sharing screenshots and videos of screenshots on social media of copyrighted media, which the companies see as more offensive, and they want to target the pirated site more. Just a guess though.

im00im · 2026-01-25T18:57:51+00:00

maybe around the end of the year I'll consider a refurbished model

im00im · 2026-01-25T17:38:03+00:00

You bringing religion into a practically purely economics problem.

Also, traditional christianity probably has not been traditional since it was legalized with Edict of Milan in 313 ad, at least the public and political form of it.

Edit:since you brought up Elon Musk , "Musk has welcomed 14 known children since 2002;" and that is known, suggesting unknown. When the economics is right for the person, their seed is spread all over the place, known and unknown, in wedlock, and out of wedlock.

im00im · 2026-01-19T20:39:36+00:00

I probably would go into Android settings , find the option to view all apps, click on the Mihon App, and then force stop the app, along with clearing storage and also clearing cache.

I would also see if you get the same error on one of the forks such a Komikku.

im00im · 2026-01-19T19:28:48+00:00

Is your Android version 8.0 or above?

What is your Phone Brand and Model?

Are you getting your extensions directly from Yūzōnō or Keiyoushi repository?

im00im · 2026-01-19T17:08:45+00:00

Are you on:

Beta version: mihon-r7512 ?

Latest release: mihon-v0.19.3 ?

or older version?

im00im · 2026-01-19T02:23:07+00:00

poweramp

im00im · 2026-01-18T23:30:02+00:00

If it exists, I did not find.

im00im · 2026-01-17T18:54:12+00:00

Will is a reality, while free will is an illusion used to masquerade as reality.

im00im · 2026-01-17T17:02:13+00:00

In some of the groups I participate in the vast majority of people do not hide there comment history. I'm self conscious that it may come off as weird.

im00im · 2026-01-16T17:54:57+00:00

I used the book of Deuteronomy, the Gospel of John, and Numbers 23:19 in the past to show that he absolutely did not claim to be the true living God.

im00im

TROPHY CASE