Romans tended to look at the paternal lineage. Matthew and Luke, whoever they really were, wrote for their audiences.

But, this is only relevant to those who insist on an innerant Bible. Or those who try to embarrass them.

Is it, though?

The same men who (allegedly) recorded all those things that Jesus said and did also went to great lengths to provide this genealogy. If one can simply wave your hands to dismiss any questions about that, why can't one simply wave away everything else as well?

Believing in an inerrant Bible, or knowing the Bible is bullshit and believing this Jesus hogwash anyway.

It was actually Christian literalists who insisted on an inerrant bible that floated the idea of Mary’s genealogy (all on the paternal side mind you), to account for the glaring contradiction between Luke and Matthew. There’s nothing in the bible that suggests this and plenty that suggests otherwise.

You were considered Jewish if your mother was Jewish and even that wasn’t codified for another thousand of so. Genealogy during the time of Jesus was based on the father. Your title came from your father. You were called ‘son of...(insert father’ name)’. Begat means to father. It was all patriarchal.

with the conception of Jesus, according to the same book of Matthew. It's all ridiculously transparent, really.

Discuss...

the funniest thing to me is that all three of "great" (Abrahamic) religions are founded on a non-existent character. Very few Bible scholars even try to maintain that Abraham was anything but a mythological figure. Sort of makes the Jesus family tree thing pure nitpicking.

Yeah...or it's all true...who knows?

The words are just a bit wrongish.

First you have to realize that god and the messiah are two different things. Jews didn't worship King David nor any of his descendants as such would be strictly forbidden under idolatry laws. What Jesus claims is he's the messiah and he was really just one out of many folks of the time with a messianic claim.

The problem is there's all sorts of problems with Jesus' messianic claim. A few of which are...

1) Matthew lists lineage through Jechonias, which had already been invalidated by Jeremiah. So right away you can throw out the lineage in Matthew, because it was specifically invalidated already.

2) God makes it quite clear in numerous passages, the messianic line will come through Solomon. So right away you can also throw out the lineage in Luke because it also was specifically invalidated.

3) The two lineages are contradictory. After David, Luke takes the path of Nathan while Matthew takes the path of Solomon.

But wait! Christians also claim the whole process was short circuited, because the Holy Poltergeist impregnated Mary, which wouldn't make him the messiah, and why do they go to such great lengths in Luke and Matthew trying to establish a messianic lineage?

Then again, with "metaphor" all things are possible. I think Jesus even said that.

Only bad people like fundagelicals and atheists demand that the Big Book O Bullshit is not full of errors. Or so we’ve been told.