Proof of Christianity

[Crossless2.0]

Nor the fact that all the names on the "female line" are men's names.

Yeah, odd isn't it? It's almost like this matrilineal argument is just a pathetic post hoc rationalization to paper over an embarrassing discrepancy.

But of course, we know that never happens in scriptural interpretation.

I suppose next we'll hear about how lines of descent were traced through the mother but it was customary to omit women's names from the list. Or, we'll be told that Heli was really Mary's father and Joseph was his son-in-law or some such tripe.

In any case, I find it peculiar that the author of Matthew, who among the Gospel writers was most anxiously concerned to demonstrate Jesus's messianic bona fides, would so clumsily have used the patriarchal line of descent if it was truly normative back then to have used the mother's line.

Regardless, the point we have both made stands. None of it matters if Joseph was not Jesus's daddy, a point fr0d0 understandably wishes to sidestep.

So I'll see his bonus points for my ignorance and raise him two more for credulity and a lack of intellectual integrity.