well you didn’t address all of them, you just picked one or two and went back to asking “why not joseph?”
Why not? Why not Zechariah? Why not Moses’ DNA? Why not Elijah’s? Why not Abel’s? It’s all so unnecessarily complicated. Doesn’t appear miraculous. Provides scoffers with evidence to support their position.
What is the ultimate point of your whole hangup with this? What’s is the fascination with this? You’ve got to be thinking of something else this would support or would help further another idea you have in your head. It has no bearing on anything essentially Christian in terms of salvation or the resurrection. What is the real reason behind pushing this?
Why not, indeed. I don't have any good reason. It's one of those "great and mysterious" things. God could have imbued his son with the DNA of Nebuchadnazzar, David might be more obvious, He could have given Jesus a lizard tongue. He could have given Jesus twelve fingers and sixteen toes.
What is the ultimate point of your whole hangup with this?
No hangup. No ultimate point. I'm not pursuing an agenda. To me, its a philosophical argument. If God the Father didn't literally copulate with Mary and ejaculate into her uterus, then He must have made choices on what genes to give his son.
It has no bearing on anything essentially Christian in terms of salvation or the resurrection.
No, it doesn't. Even if we could sequence Christ's DNA, which we can't, it wouldn't mean anything.
What is the real reason behind pushing this?
It's an interesting question. A topic for discussion. An idea to kick around. If I were in God's position -- and yes, I know how incredibly presumptuous that is -- comes the time to choose a genome, I'd choose Joseph's.