Thank you for the exchange.
Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus’ genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. He lists Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary’s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli’s son-in-law
If ancestry is traced through the father as you say then it would be very improper to list the father-in-law instead of the father. Can you give any examples of a genealogy where this has been done ? I would also like to know what this "sound reason"" for assuming that Luke did it happens to be. So far as I know the only real reason for doing so is to deny the obvious contradiction between Luke and Matthew. And believe me, I've seen this argument trotted out many times.
From an outside perspective, each of the available assertions appear equally baseless and unfounded. In all fairness, one seems faith-based in nature, while another seems vague, if even stated. One who takes no stand can continually and valiantly debate another's assertion. Supporting no actual position is the easiest way to defend one; unfortunately, as the position as no basis, it is also the least effective - lol
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
™ Version 4.2
