#611: You have mistaken the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s editors for an official Catholic doctrine. But bringing that topic back to #610, even by the interpretation of Genesis 3:15 you favor, Jesus would be the “seed” of Eve, which does not support a neo-Nestorian view denying Jesus’ descent from Eve through Mary. Jesus is descended from Eve through David, but neither Scripture nor Occam’s Razor support the notion pulled from thin air that God took a gamete from David. The Bible calls Mary the mother of Jesus, not the incubator of David’s gamete. And if you think God taking Mary’s ovum would be adulterous, proposing that God took David’s sperm instead would hardly solve your problem. Your position leaves no non-adulterous way for Jesus to be the Son of David, and represents an un-Biblical, ad hoc redefining of the word “mother”.
God is not an adulterer, therefore HE would not use the genetic material of a woman already betrothed to Joseph. As for 'my problem', it is Catholicism which creates dogma replete with heresies and even blasphemies. HOW God accomplished the fabrication of the embryonic Jesus is beyond you or me to know at this time. So any assertion from you or me as if fact would be erroneous. So this lack of facts is not 'my problem', it is an indication that Rome fashions 'tradition' to fit the dogma they hold to, sometimes even irrationally hold to.
By the way, poster, 'born of a woman' does not require ANY genetic material from that woman and the child so born has as his/her mother the woman in whose womb the child gestated. Peddle the Romish dictates to someone less familiar with the science and the Bible.