>>18070377
>The Bible implies they are doesn't it?
It doesn't seem that way to me and it also doesn't seem that way to the Christian scholars that admit scribal errors as the only way out without making Matthew ignorant of previous scripture
>but it's worth pointing out that the Bible does actually use the term "son of" to refer to other ancestors at times
I am aware however that poses other problems for you given the fact that you take the Son of God title literally for Jesus but not Adam. And also you would still have to prove lineage anyway so what have you really solved?
>Thus, the New Testament is included in the term "Scripture." See also the following:
What a logical leap! If Hypothetically Luke was accepted by Paul that does NOT make the rest of the NT canon.
>The pastoral epistles are a group of three books of the canonical New Testament: the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy), the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy), and the Epistle to Titus. They are presented as letters from Paul the Apostle to Timothy and to Titus. However, many scholars believe they were written after Paul's death.
Looks like you can't justify that "he" was quoting Luke