Ask, Seek, Knock

[Drich]

Um, I see it just a few centimeters above:

That does not make Jesus the literal son of david, but 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).

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of 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.

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.

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?

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? 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.

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.

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.

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.