Christians - even the Bible says that Jesus was not God so why do you say he was ?

[GrandizerII]

Sounds like a strawman. You do know "most" doesn't necessarily imply such a high percentage, right? It just has to mean that more of Matthew was repeated/paraphrased by Luke than not.

That definition of most doesn't support your case. If you say, Hey, Luke used 51% of Matthew, so why didn't he use parts of Matthew's nativity account - it is very odd this very clear deviation, you wouldn't get very far. So, you say it's obvious, or point to another chapter with higher concordance, and avoid getting into the real numbers.

Catholic apologetic rubbish adding to the text something that's not there. I thought you were all about Occam's razor.

So going with your "explanation" here, why didn't Luke just mention Mary then? Did he not know that Heli was her father, and not Joseph's?

Possibly because genealogies were patriarchal at the time, so the son-in-law was mentioned rather than the daughter. Possibly, this is another genealogy of Joseph due to Levirate marriage.

If you need a number, make it around 80%. But forget numbers, just look at Matthew and Luke displayed side by side. You want a start, start with Chapter 3 and then move onwards from there. Way too many similarities to not ignore the deviation in all the verses related to the nativity or genealogy.

But I sense you're not open to seeing that right now. Maybe  in the future you might.

Your response on the genealogy thing defies Occam's Razor, mr. Occam's man.

The "as was supposed" bit is referring to the view that Jesus did not have a biological father as Luke believed he was born of a virgin. It has nothing to do with Heli.

Why does Q have to still exist? Lots of texts get destroyed without us getting the chance to have any copies of them.