We are speaking of deities and dogma. No matter what is said, if it is not in accordance to a particular belief, it COULD be considered inflammatory.

Nothing that has been written on this thread the last few days has come across to me as inflammatory. You asked about Jewish adoption beliefs. I answered. Vortigern then noted that by those beliefs Jesus could have been interpreted as a bastard in the day and age. It all is tied to when Joseph accepted Jesus as his son. If it was after his birth, then by Jewish tradition and law, Jesus was born a momzer. However, once Joseph accepted Jesus as his son, that stigma would have been erased and he would no longer be a momzer.

I do not think Vort was making a disparaging remark when he said such; he was simply noting a non-Christian reason why a divinity claim could have been made at the time. This is, to me, a valid argument to an idea of divinity for Jesus since I am among those that do not accept his divinity.

By the by, another reason that Jews do not see divinity in Jesus is that we do not require it of our moshiach (messiah). Moshiach is clearly defined as a human for us. Moshiach means annointed one. It does not imply divinity in any way. To the Jews, when Moshiach comes, he will be human. Born of a human, and he will die as a human. Annointed by G-d does not equate to born of G-d.