Skip the lecture on "irony," back in the day?
A question was posited. I answered it.
Just like Burger King, eh? Your way. Your way is wrong. In a court of law, that is hearsay. It is what someone else said he said. He was a Rabbi, and there is no way he would have made such a statement. In those days, the Hebrew tradition of dual paternity was well known and G-d was every human being's father in heaven. The belief is that there can be no conception without the presence of the *father* in heaven and the *father* on earth. In other words, each child is a miracle. Without that, there can be no children.
So you must take the New Testament in context of the time period, which you haven't, and most people who preach incessantly don't. Jesus, according to the NT, was a very devout Hebrew who tried without much success to stop the influx of Hellenism into the Judaic culture. There was as much political intrigue then as there is now, and a devout Jew, a rebel Rabbi, would never have walked away from his roots. Not until Paul did the convolutions begin, and Paul wasn't even born until after Jesus was supposed to have died. Paul CHANGED the traditions Jesus fought to restore. Read it for yourself. Both Peter AND Paul can't be right. Jesus handpicked Peter, not Paul. So who messed it all up for the rest of time?
Oh, hell. What's the use...