My apologies - I did not read that carefully enough. I re-read it now, and It is fairly straightforward, and well may be the only explanation that works. Very good, thank you.
When a man died before his wife conceived his brother was supposed to impregnate her so that his brother would not be left without seed. The child begotten by her was named and inherited and was considered the “seed” of his mother’s husband- not his father’s brother.
Just a note, not sure if/how it applies to the question.
It doesn’t directly apply. But it does seem to suggest why Jesus’ genealogy was given through Joseph.
Though Joseph was not the biological father, he was the husband of Jesus’ mother.
Suppose within Jewry in an ordinary marriage, the wife became impregnated by a man who was not her husband (as Joseph thought was the case here). Would not the child’s genealogy be given through the wife’s husband?
As well as suggesting perhaps in terms of inheritance, tribe, household and sonship other things than direct impregnation apply. Another thought is that Jacob received the blessing of the firstborn through a word, not through birth right.
Okay it looks like some explanation could be made. OTOH, a ‘plain’ reading could lead one to the belief that Joseph, of the seed of David, was the father.
Another scenario is this: Joseph was the biological father, and the virgin birth story is just that - in line with other literature of the period that accented the glorious accomplishments of ‘great’ leaders by attributing to them a miraculous birth.
I’m not sure what is at stake by accepting that scenario. It would stress Jesus’ humanity, which is a big scriptural focus. It would devalue the ‘two natures’ theory of certain creeds, but they are not necessary imo anyway. The Word would still be made flesh, if by the Word we mean the Father’s eternal wisdom and goals and love, not a pre-existent person.
Well in any case, I’m not seeing where the scenario would necessarily be heretical. I’ll have to think about it some more.
Okay it looks like some explanation could be made. OTOH, a ‘plain’ reading could lead one to the belief that Joseph, of the seed of David, was the father.
Another scenario is this: Joseph was the biological father, and the virgin birth story is just that - in line with other literature of the period that accented the glorious accomplishments of ‘great’ leaders by attributing to them a miraculous birth.
I’m not sure what is at stake by accepting that scenario. It would stress Jesus’ humanity, which is a big scriptural focus. It would devalue the ‘two natures’ theory of certain creeds, but they are not necessary imo anyway. The Word would still be made flesh, if by the Word we mean the Father’s eternal wisdom and goals and love, not a pre-existent person.
Well in any case, I’m not seeing where the scenario would necessarily be heretical. I’ll have to think about it some more.
Knew you were trolling. 
I know it looks like a troll - but it still is NOT. 
I do like being the loyal opposition at times. An outrageous position can throw light on what are sometimes less-than-thought-out-orthodoxies.
Oh, great! Another nominee for the Holy Fools tradition 
Where do I apply? 
First you need to pass a test. You need to emulate Murdoch of the A-team, as a role model. And you need to prove you’re as “off the wall”, as Curly Howard, of the Three Stooges. Are you prepared for the test 
Sadly, no. 
Gosh darn, why don’t more people understand this!!!
Because everyone is so sure that their theory didn’t just evolve… it is the God given truth ;o)
I agree that there is a sense in which the HS is distinct. But is the HS distinct as a PERSON? If the HS is a divine Person distinct from the Father and the Son, then it would make sense to pray to the HS. And we do, in fact, hear prayer addressed to the HS in modern churches. Also, many of our modern hymns are addressed to the HS, such as “Come Holy Spirit I need Thee. Come sweet Spirit I pray. Come in Thy strength and Thy power. Come in Thy own gentle way.”
However, in the prayers recorded in the Bible, we don’t find a single one addressed to the Holy Spirit. If the HS is divine and personal, one would expect prayer to have been made to Him, wouldn’t one? Or is it merely accidental that not one prayer to the HS is recorded in the Bible?
Here is the translation of a hymn from the year 200 A.D. addressed to the Lord Jesus:
*Bridle-bit of untamed colts,
Wing of birds that do not go astray,
Sure Tiller of ships,
Shepherd of the King’s lambs!
Gather your children
Who live in simplicity.
Let them sing in holiness.
Let them celebrate with sincerity,
With a mouth that knows no evil,
The Christ who guides his children!
O King of the saints,
O sovereign Word
Of the Most High Father,
Prince of wisdom,
Support of toiling men,
Eternal Joy of the human family,
O Jesus, Saviour …*
Even this hymn after Trinitarianism became widely spread in the fourth century, addresses the Father and the Son but not the Spirit:
*O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty,
O Lord, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ;
O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
That takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.*
A good observation. But not necessarily true that prayer to the Holy Spirit is expected or required to prove his person-hood. This observation needs to be weighed against other observations.
My Statement of Faith
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
+1