Ask, Seek, Knock

[Drich]

"Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

As Joseph was alive when Christ was born Jews law demanded that he be mentioned. A woman's identified was tied to her husband or her Father. he Husband was alive so it is to his name that her son was identified.

This says nothing about not explicitly saying that a genealogy was traced through the mothers line.

Because you weren't supposed to do this in an offical Jewish geneology.

You're wanting to have us believe that they would name the father even though they were tracing it through the mother's line which you haven't presented any evidence of.

The evidence has been presented you just don't seem to understand it.

Again, Joseph was alive so technically the geneology was acredited to his house/his name as in accordance with Jewish law. Yet Luke in the geneology itself places doubt on the genetic claim that Joseph would have on Jesus. Then from Joseph starts back with Mary's father. (as their wasn't a jewish word for father in law.)

This is not the rubix cube your making it out to be.

The whole page reeks of circular reasoning. It can summed up with "The bible is inerrant so these two genealogy aren't in contradiction. One must be tracing the mother's line so lets make up stuff and twist the text to read it as the mother's line."

Then show me 'proof' that says this is made up. I am sure we are not the only two atheist Christian who have argued this point. It would not be hard for one of you to shut this arguement down if it is made us as you say it is.