The Messiah had to be of the line of David (Jeremiah 33:15–17; Isaiah 9:7), so two gospels provide genealogies of Jesus to validate this requirement. The problem is that we only need to go back one generation, to Joseph’s father, to find a problem.

Jacob [was] the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16).

Jesus . . . was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).

There is just one unique male biological line that would terminate in Joseph, so at least one of these genealogies is wrong. And it’s hard to imagine that an ordinary Joe like Joseph would have a reliable record of his genealogy going back generations. Worse, Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus, so his genealogy is irrelevant. If being in the line of David is a requirement, then having a god for a father makes you ineligible.

The most common rebuttal is to say that the Luke genealogy is for Mary, but the text makes clear that it’s for Joseph. Anyway, why would you provide the genealogy of the parent from whom descent from David wouldn’t count?
We’re seeing the incompatible clash of two ideas: Jesus inherits David’s throne and Jesus was the son of God.

Matthew is a Jews, Luke is a gentile, Mathew trace His Lagal line while Luke trace His biological line. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16).
Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph begat Jesus’ but
that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born."

Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35), he says: "Jesus .. .. being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli" (Lu 3:23). Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary....

We may conclude that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph (Lu 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4).If there was any accusation
made by hostile Jews that Jesus’birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.

malvisguy212:
Matthew is a Jews, Luke is a gentile, Mathew trace His Lagal line while Luke trace His biological line. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16).
Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph begat Jesus’ but
that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born."

Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35), he says: "Jesus .. .. being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli" (Lu 3:23). Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary....

We may conclude that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph (Lu 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4).If there was any accusation
made by hostile Jews that Jesus’birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.

Read the OP well, it was suggested that you'll bring this kind of defense! But the geneology tree in both verses ends with Joseph not Mary!

And Jesus was said to be the son of God with no earthly father so why create two false geneology for him from David!

And who is the father of Joseph? Jacob as Mathew says or Heli as Luke says?

AntiChristian:


Read the OP well, it was suggested that you'll bring this kind of defense! But the geneology tree in both verses ends with Joseph not Mary!

And Jesus was said to be the son of God with no earthly father so why create two false geneology for him from David!

And who is the father of Joseph? Jacob as Mathew says or Heli as Luke says?

you created a topic which you do not understand.the Jews never introduce women as direct genealogical links,Matthew genealogy differs from Luke's genealogy because it traces a different path through Jesus' lineag.

malvisguy212:
you created a topic which you do not understand.the Jews never introduce women as direct genealogical links,Matthew genealogy differs from Luke's genealogy because it traces a different path through Jesus' lineag.

How can one person have two geneologies?
I don't expect you to comment anymore on these? It's clear. Jacob is the father of Joseph and Heli is the father of Joseph!

No Mary was mentioned and if it was a different path it won't still end in Joseph!

No man ever has two geneologies!