Luke 1:35 come at the climax of the Lukan birth narrative. 1:18 and is begotten in Mary out of the holy spirit in 1:20. However, the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as you wife, for the child who has been begotten in her is of the holy spirit” (ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου). Matthew 1:18 continues the discussion with the words, “Now the genesis (ἡ γένεσις) of Jesus happened this way.” The narrative goes on to describe how Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but found herself miraculously with child due in part to the holy spirit. The Greek text has around forty “begats” (ἐγέννησεν) coming from genao, the verb which means “to beget/generate.” The climax comes at the end when Jesus is brought into existence in the womb of Mary, as the text reads, “Mary, out of whom was begotten Jesus” (Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς, 1:16). The evangelist then spends the next seventeen verses tracing the lineage of Jesus Christ through his ancestors, starting with Abraham and culminating in his mother Mary. Matthew’s account begins with the record of the genesis (γενέσεως) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. I only want to add to his argument here and hammer it harder. In these two Gospels, Jesus comes into existence at the moment of his conception. If you read their accounts closely, you will see that they have nothing to do with the idea that Christ existed before he was conceived. According to this later view, Christ was a preexistent divine being who “became incarnate through the Virgin Mary.” But not according to Matthew and Luke. I should stress that these virginal conception narratives of Matthew and Luke are by no stretch of the imagination embracing the view that later became the orthodox teaching of Christianity. His comments are most helpful on this point: Ehrman argues for a conception christology in Matthew and Luke based upon their respected birth narratives. Despite my previous posts, which may seem that all I do is disagree with the book, I do occasionally find points of commonality. I finally found a good section of Ehrman with which I heartily agree.

Ehrman how jesus became god