]1) Yes, the Bible says Jesus is among the descendants of David. But that doesn't necesarrily mean son. Not every descendant is a son naturally.
More precisely, Paul, and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John, says that Jesus is descended from David, and the author of Mark says Jesus is not a descendant of David.
But that doesn't necesarrily mean son. Not every descendant is a son naturally.
I'm not aware of any biblical genealogy or any 1st century Jewish practice that creates geneologies, by reference to descent from the female side. Are you?
2) the genealogies don't contradict the claim that Jesus is God's literal son.
If you can produce an example of a Jewish genealogy of that era that traces descent through the female side, I'll consider your argument. Meanwhile I know of zero support for it, and thus no basis to accept it.
3) Yes, Jesus was a Jew. You say that some Biblical authors claim, he was an ordinary Jew.
Ordinary in the sense of being like other Jews, that is, not having pre-existed with God in heaven and having created the material universe, not being born of a virgin by divine insemination, and not otherwise having a specific title "son of God".
He is a Jew. That does not necessarily mean that the authors claimed him to be ordinary.
As I keep pointing out, the five major authors say three different things here. And Mark's Jesus is not thought special by his mother or his family, nor by his Jewish colleagues in any sense the author of Mark thinks is worth mentioning, and has to be washed clean of his sins before the heavens open and he becomes the son of God by adoption.
4) Even if Mary thought Jesus was quite ordinary... Mary is not the one who determines who Jesus really is.
We're talking about the mother of Mark's Jesus, not the mother of Matthew's Jesus or Luke's Jesus. (And Paul's and John's Jesuses have no specific parents attributed ─ all we know is that they were Jews, and had a Jewish father and mother, since Jesus, to them, is of the line of David.
Several times she was quite stunned by Jesus. That's nothing. Let her be stunned as much as she wants.
It's interesting that in all four gospels (Paul is silent on the point) Jesus never mentions his family or his mother except in vituperative terms, the sole exception being John's crucifixion scene (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).
5) You say the churches do not understand the concept of trinity. Maybe. That doesn't make it false.
It can't be true if they can't say what it is, And they admit they can't ─ the definition of a "mystery in the strict sense" (not to be confused with a simple "mystery") is that it "cannot be known by unaided by human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed" ─ their words, not mine, (Here I'm quoting the
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. The net's
Catholic Encyclopedia, under the headings "mystery" and "Trinity" says the same thing, but in more muffled words.)
6) unhistorical (meaning events that aren't corroborated by other sources) does not mean made up.
They mean someone made it up, and the stories are fictions, not factual reports. Matthew wears his motives on his sleeve ─ he wants his Jesus to conform to what he thinks are "messianic prophecies" in the Tanakh. For example he decides that the mother of Jesus must be a virgin because the Septuagint translates Hebrew 'almah' in Isaiah 7:14 as 'parthenos' ie 'virgin' whereas the Hebrew word simply means 'young woman'. The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is not and can't be about Jesus is something our author apparently thinks is irrelevant.
He invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to "fulfill" Micah 5:2.
He invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.
In Matthew 21:2-5 he absurdly seats Jesus across a foal
and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" in Zechariah 9.9.
And so on.