Ask, Seek, Knock

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
Why do I need to show this literal line? It is common just common sense. If their was a condition/prophesy that the Messiah had to be from the house of Daivd or a decendant of david, and my tradition does not count a step father being related to david as proof of a step son being a literal decendant of david, then I would turn to the other parent to see if the blood of david indeed flowed through the man in question. [emphasis mine]

Begging the question again! You haven't shown that the other parent's line is even mentioned.

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.

Are you a jew? Does it make sense to you to have your step son be counted as your genetic offspring? Would you honestly look at this child and see your father's eyes or your mothers nose? Would you see this child as a member of your blood line?
Then 2000 years ago when all of those things were much more important to a (Greek, Roman, or Jew) do you not see this as an obstical for one trying to accept the legitimacy of one claiming to be of a certain house?

Still you haven't provided evidence that that would be some great obstacle for the Greek reader.

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.

I am saying that the records were unconstestable then. In a time when every aspect of Christ was being challenged why wasn't Christ or rather Christianity destroyed by the arguement you think you have found now?

You're assuming a lot. You're assuming that anyone would go through the trouble to run background checks on Jesus' ancestry. You're assuming there were records. You're assuming that an inconsistent genealogical record would stop a movement. And this of course assumes that most people would have even noticed the inconsistency to begin with (people as you know didn't have their very own personal copy of the gospels).

Because No one could challenge what was a matter of public record. This was a non issue. because we have two geneoloigies and two parents. One follows the other. You are trying to cop out on a techinicality over looking simply logic and truth. [emphasis mine]

More question begging.

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 two geneologies two parents. How is this any more complicated than that? This is truly a non issue unless you are trying to make it one.

Question begging. *yawn*

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?

are you being Obstinate or ignorant here? Do a google search. This is why we are having a 10 page discussion because you are ignorant of Jewish geneologies or you don't believe in them. If you want to be educated on Jewish geneologies then start another thread.

It is your responsibility to provide evidence for your case. All you provided was some page that had worse references and use of evidence than a lazy college freshman's paper.

And, provide for me please an example of a genealogy that goes back to Adam. Seriously. And give me reasons why we should trust a genealogy that supposedly traces back to ancestors (Adam, Noah, etc) who lived before the existence of Israel and the invention of writing!

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.

for anyone in the know you sound like a bit of a dumbass right now. do a google search before you respond.

You haven't demonstrated you're "in the know." You haven't even offered a valid argument for reading it as Mary's line when it reads plainly as Joseph's. You've only offered assertions, unsupported assumptions, and circular reasoning. You sound like a bit of a dumbass right now.