[pgyanke]

> "The biblical scholars mostly agree that Jesus was born out of wedlock (it was attested to early on, when people alive at the time could have contradicted it)."

Jesus wasn't born out of wedlock. He was conceived out of wedlock. Big difference.

Joseph was encouraged by an angel in a dream to continue the wedding plans despite Mary being with child. Later, as his wife, she went with Joseph to Bethlehem for the census (when there was no room at the inn). Otherwise she would have gone with her own family.

There is great historical evidence that Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Jesus's birth and few real "scholars" dispute it.

[Defiant]

You are correct on the point you are making. When I said born out of wedlock, I meant simply that he was not the son of his mother's husband. You are using the definition supplied by state law, which is that any child born to a married woman is born in wedlock, and is presumed to be the son of the husband. It matters not for this issue. It is most likely they were married at the time of the birth. The key point is, Joseph accepted it, which would have been highly unusual in that society unless there had been some reason for him to do so, which points to the type of divine intervention you referenced.