Ask, Seek, Knock

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Assumption: he needed to understand how Jesus was literally the son of David.

Fact because in order to be the messiah He must be a desendant of David.

Assumption: Jesus was thought to be the literal son of David in synoptic gospels.

where did you see this?

Um, I see it just a few centimeters above:

Fact because in order to be the messiah He must be a desendant of David.

The assumption is evident in the fact that you think you need to find a literal blood line between Jesus and David. Since Joseph isn't the literal father, then you think you must find a literal line from Mary to David (even though it doesn't say she's related to David).

But why assume that you need a literal connection to David? You haven't explained why this supposed Greek reader of Luke needed to see a literal line between Jesus and David. You say because he wasn't a jew, it wouldn't have made sense because he didn't know the culture, but the connection between not knowing the culture and being confused about Jesus being a son of David through Joseph isn't clear at all. The idea of him being so dense that he couldn't understand that Jesus was an adopted descendent of David is itself an assertion.

Give me something like "The verse in Luke should be understood to be tracing through Mary's line and not Josephs because of A, B, C etc."

Ive done this 3 or more times and you have ignored what was written.

Yeah, no you haven't, not without just asserting it or without circular reasoning anyway.

Or they both represent two different guesses (or traditions) by the writers as to Jesus' ancestry through the father, which is what it naturally reads as.

The Jews were fanatic record keepers, there would have been no question as to who's geneology was being used.

You're just begging the question again. You're assuming one is Mary's line and one is Joseph's and then saying that because of the Jew's magical textual reading skills could see which was which.

It naturally reads as being two different and contradictory lines. To assert that one is Mary's even though there's no evidence at all that it is (her name isn't even mentioned in the line) is unnecessary.

Again which brings me back to point 4 in my last post to you. If Mat and Luke were both just using a public document to denote the linage of Christ then how does this translate into a biblical error? You said as much yourself in your last statement.

Who said they were relying on public documents? That's another assumption. They could be made up. And what public document would trace Jesus all the way back to Adam?

If they were just "inspired" guesses, and therefore since guesses could be wrong, there's no biblical error, that would mean the Bible is lying because it portrays both genealogies as the absolute truth. They can't both be true at the same time, so one or both of them must be wrong.