that is not necessarily true for the reason that 'sons in law' were legally viewed as 'sons' of the brides father.
Even if that is true it still doesn't do for Jesus. He has no earthly father, if we accept the Virgin Birth, hence there is no bloodline.
You need to get this Mary thing out of your head as a female's geneology has no bearing on the bloodline.
It still gives Jesus the 'legal' right to take the throne of David.
Apart from the fact that it doesn't, we also have the added problem that Jesus was never crowned King, He simply was not the Messiah. It is difficult to accept that Jesus was the Messiah who would take the 'throne of David' when Jesus died 2000 years ago and was never crowned. A little bit of a problem that.
Why do you say that?
Nathan was a son of David by his wife Bath-sheba.
For the millionth time, the Messiah is to come from the blood of David through SOLOMON, how many times do you need to be told this?
The natural lineage of Messiah is traced, from David through Nathan and his descendants down to Jesus,
Why are you ignoring the prophecy in 2 Samuel, is it too vague for you?
Maybe 1 Chron. 28 is easier for you to understand?
And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.
Forget Nathan, the kingdom to be established is Solomon's, hence Nathan's bloodline is of no use.
via Marys father Heli.
Where does the Bible say that Mary's father was Heli?