Lineage of Jesus

This explanation simply doesn't work. Can you show ANY examples of a Jewish, Greek or Roman genealogy, even remotely contemporary to Jesus where the father of a child is listed as being in the mother's line - without any indication at all of that ? Why not explicitly give Mary's lineage instead ? As Luke's genealogy is written it is clearly the line through Joseph.

Your explanation doesn't work because Luke's genealogy is traced through Joseph. You are tkaing a reading that is not so much strained as directly contrary to the text. *If* you coudl show some precedent or some evidence to suggest that such a reading were at all plausible I would listen, but what you have is so weak that I would be reluctant to even class it as circumstantial evidence.And no you haven't explained why Luke did not give Mary's lineage explicitly - you have invented an excuse. Without any precedent or any reason to think that it is remotely plausible that a lineage would be written in the fashion you claim.It is not even as if Luke deliberately left clues - how much work would it take to give the name of Mary's father ? It's something that could quite naturally be included and while it would still only be a weak clue and inadequate to support your assertion it would have been far better than any of your "clues".And yes I can give plausible reasons why Luke's Gospel states "He was the son of Joseph, SO IT WAS THOUGHT. . .?"
1) Only the paternal lineage counts so Joseph's lineage was given regardless
2) Luke copied the lineage from another source, but added the "SO IT WAS THOUGHT" to emphasise the Virgin Birth doctrine.
3) Luke did not write the "SO IT WAS THOUGHT", it was added early on because some readers were taking it as contradicitng the Virgin Birth doctrine.

Sorry, but your "under the household of Joseph" doesn't explain why a man you say is Mary's father would be listed as Joseph's father. So your reading is direclty contradictory to the text.As to my reasons, the first explains why Luke would give Jospeh's lineage even if he beleived that Joseph were not "really" Jesus' father.The second is equally simple, Luke would have had to have got the information from somewhere - so why not a written source ?As for the third, since I am presenting alternative explanations why should it be a problem if they contradict ? Only one of them needs to be the case.And why would I need evidence for things which are simply possible explantions ? YOu don't have any evidence to suggest that anyone would even think of writing a geneaology of the sort you attribute to Luke. If you require so little evidence for something so obviously implausible then why would I need any more ?

It's frequently asked beacuse IF Luke expected his genealogy to be interpreted in the way Phil says then it should be the case that there are precedents. IF there are no precedents then we SHOULD accept the natural reading as the intended reading.I did laugh at the little joke you make at the expense of inerrantists. But it's a bit harsh - what if Phil took you seriously and made a fool of himself by actually ASKING your question ?