cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Redemptionsong]

Except no one and no sources from the 1st century to the 18th century ever claim or interpret Heli being Mary’s father.

Torrey is not only have no sources to back up his claim about Mary, it is utterly poor scholarship.

Did I tell you not so long ago, if you going to make claim about past writings, then you would need (A) supporting sources or (B) supporting evidence to back, or C, both, to verify your claim?

You relied your own claim on Torrey’s claims, but he has nothing more than his interpretations, which are not enough to support his claim.

What you don’t seem to under with genuine biblical scholarship, that you still need verifications to support any claim you make.

Torrey made his claims - his interpretations - but such interpretations cannot verify itself. Verifying one’s self, is a classic case of circular reasoning.

I had offered you alternative, Redemptionsong.

I had backed my own claim with actual source - the Gospel of James - where names of Mary were given as Joachim and Anne, both revered as saints from churches in the East (eg Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Church, Coptic Church, etc) and West (eg Roman Catholic Church, Lutheranism).

Sure, the Gospel of James is both non-canonical and apocryphal source, and sure, James the Just didn’t write this gospel, but the apostles Matthew and John didn’t write the respective canonical gospels, and the gospel of James is still a source.

Plus, the Gospel of James as well with other non-canonical apocryphal texts weren’t simply written without basis...meaning they are based on early church traditions that already existed.

As I said before when I talk about my experiences with the creation of my website - Timeless Myths - I gained experiences chasing sources, partly because I enjoy reading and researching myths, but a more practical purpose of scholarship, is to provide comprehensive understanding of the researched materials, and to verify whatever myths I was writing with sources.

What I did for Timeless Myths, would also apply to historical scholarship and even to biblical scholarship.

And I am just amazed that you continued to ignore the gospel of James.

Clearly I have wasted my time replying to you, because you are pretty determined to bury your head in the sand.

You appear to have missed the whole point made by Josephus!

There are two genealogies in the NT. One, in Matthew, relates to Joseph, and mentions his father, Jacob. The other relates to Mary, who cannot be included in the genealogy; so we have the relationship between her husband, Joseph, and Mary's father instead. This is clearly the case, otherwise we would have two genealogies of Joseph with quite different ancestors!

Josephus tells us that the genealogies were available in 'THE PUBLIC RECORDS'. He says this twice, stating that ANCIENT TABLES were scrutinised. This would have been upheld if both parties had David in their lineage!

Moreover, the publication of these genealogies in the Gospels would allow anybody to check for the truth! The information was in 'THE PUBLIC RECORDS'!

 

[gnostic]

You appear to have missed the whole point made by Josephus!

There are two genealogies in the NT. One, in Matthew, relates to Joseph, and mentions his father, Jacob. The other relates to Mary, who cannot be included in the genealogy; so we have the relationship between her husband, Joseph, and Mary's father instead. This is clearly the case, otherwise we would have two genealogies of Joseph with quite different ancestors!

Josephus tells us that the genealogies were available in 'THE PUBLIC RECORDS'. He says this twice, stating that ANCIENT TABLES were scrutinised. This would have been upheld if both parties had David in their lineage!

Moreover, the publication of these genealogies in the Gospels would allow anybody to check for the truth! The information was in 'THE PUBLIC RECORDS'!

But you don’t get it that no one called Mary “daughter of Heli” until the late 19th century to the present.

These claims about Mary with Luke 3’s genealogy are based on pure speculation with no early sources to back it up. They are modern claims by Christian apologists, which included you and some other members.

Second. Josephus never listed Jesus’ genealogy from Nathan (David’s son) to Heli. The only such listing of generations come from Luke 3. You would need actual original genealogy to verify Luke’s version (from David to Heli), which don’t exist.

As to Matthew 1’s genealogy, we have 1:8

8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah,

In the Old Testament, Jehoram (Joram) wasn’t “father of Uzziah”, He was father of Ahaziah; Uzziah was Jehoram’s great-great grandson. Uzziah’s father was Amaziah, not Jehoram (Joram).

Matthew 1:8 is missing 3 generations from Joram (Jehoram), so the passage is missing the following of the Old Testament genealogy, which I had highlighted in bold:

Jehoram
Ahaziah
Jehoash
Amaziah
Uzziah​

Three missing names and 3 missing generations, when you compare the Old Testament with Matthew 1.

Either the mistake is from the Old Testament genealogy (between David and Solomon’s lineage to Jen, or from the gospel’s genealogy. I would say Matthew 1 is wrong, because there is another missing generation (Matthew 1:11).

11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

Missing in this verse, is Jehoiakim:

Josiah
Jehoiakim
Jehoiachin (Jeconiah)​

Josiah’s son and Jehoiachin’s father was Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim became king when his brother Jehohaz lost the throne.

34 Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah and changed his name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz away; he came to Egypt and died there.

Jehoiachin‘s father was Jehoiakim in the Old Testament, which would mean Josiah was Jehoiochin’s grandfather:

6 So Jehoiakim slept with his ancestors; then his son Jehoiachin succeeded him.

So a total of 4 missing generations in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, from Solomon’s lineage to Jehoiachin (Jeconiah).

The lineage show in both gospels are unreliable. Unreliable because in Luke 3, there are no other source to verify Luke’s version from David to Heli.

While in Matthew 1, there are 4 omissions when you compare the Matthew’s version with the Old Testament’s version, from David to Jehoiachin (Jeconiah).

 

[Redemptionsong]

These claims about Mary with Luke 3’s genealogy are based on pure speculation with no early sources to back it up. They are modern claims by Christian apologists, which included you and some other members.

How can any claim about Heli be a 'modern claim' when the evidence exists in the Gospel of Luke?

Luke was written by the same author as Acts. Acts was written before the Jewish Wars, and the Gospel of Luke was written earlier than Acts. So, Luke's Gospel was in existence when all the public records were openly available to scrutinise! This means that the genealogy of Mary must have come from legitimate sources that were verifiable. It has very little to do with modern interpretation. The evidence existed in the first century, and must have been accepted. Had this not been the case, the Gospels would have been rejected by the Jews of the early Church. The authenticity of Jesus' claims to the throne are an essential ingredient to belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and this is why two Gospels devote space to the nativity, each supportive of the other.

The record in Matthew is particularly interesting, because it shows the royal line. There are generations missing, or intentionally omitted (such as three generations of the apostate murderess, Athaliah), because the writer wishes to convey a message about faithfulness. Each of the three divisions within the genealogy in Matthew are divided into the number fourteen. The first group, from Abraham to David, represent the faithful in God. The second group, from Solomon to Jeconiah, represent the decline of faith, with the resulting deportation to Babylon. The third group represent the royalty who never sit upon the throne in Jerusalem. The birth of Christ brings this group to an end, allowing for his own 'generation' to begin.

Were you aware that the curse on Jeconiah [Jeremiah 22:30] was never lifted? This means that whilst the royal line was still effective, all male claimants through Jeconiah (who was childless) were illegitimate owing to the curse. Hence, any earthly claimant to be the 'King of the Jews' is not legimate because the male side of the equation is cursed. The link to David must be through the mother's line, whilst retaining royal legitimacy. In other words, the royal line is only continued by the marriage of a royal descendant (namely, Joseph) to one of David's descendants through a non-royal son of David (namely, Nathan), who is Mary.

The solution provided by God is the only possible solution to the royal dilemma! It's the most brilliant and perfect answer one could hope to find. Understood correctly, it's enough to lead a person to faith in Jesus as the Christ!

 

[gnostic]

How can any claim about Heli be a 'modern claim' when the evidence exists in the Gospel of Luke?

Just how absurd can you be that you don't understand?

There are no actual ANCIENT SOURCES that EXPLICITLY SAY that Mary is Heli's daughter:

23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli

What Luke 3:23 do say Joseph being the son of Heli, not "Mary daughter of Heli".

The only time you hear of Heli being Mary's father, only come from modern apologists. And all I see is interpretation of Luke 3:23, but no explicit mention of "Mary daughter of Heli".

These apologists say that Luke 3 is Mary's genealogy, that Heli was Joseph's fahter-in-law - but that all are CONJECTURES.

AM I ANY CLEARER NOW???!!!!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Just how absurd can you be that you don't understand?

There are no actual ANCIENT SOURCES that EXPLICITLY SAY that Mary is Heli's daughter:

There are no longer any ancient sources on Heli, apart from the Bible. But what Josephus demonstrates is that these sources were in existence when the Gospel accounts were written. It is, therefore, inconceivable that a claim to the throne of David could be made without the correct genealogies being in place! All that a sceptic had to do was go to Jerusalem and check the public records for themselves!

Your claim against Heli is based on false logic. You're saying that just because we don't have corroborating evidence of Heli's name that he cannot have existed. What nonsense!

What you also keep overlooking is the fact that Mary cannot appear in a patriarchal genealogy.

 

[gnostic]

There are no longer any ancient sources on Heli, apart from the Bible. But what Josephus demonstrates is that these sources were in existence when the Gospel accounts were written. It is, therefore, inconceivable that a claim to the throne of David could be made without the correct genealogies being in place! All that a sceptic had to do was go to Jerusalem and check the public records for themselves!

Your claim against Heli is based on false logic. You're saying that just because we don't have corroborating evidence of Heli's name that he cannot have existed. What nonsense!

What you also keep overlooking is the fact that Mary cannot appear in a patriarchal genealogy.

Again, you still have responded to the fact, that there early church traditions which included the apocryphal Gospel of James (circa 150 CE), that do state her father was Joachim.

Ancient source that say Joachim and Anne were Mary’s parents. And early churches considered them as saints, in western and eastern churches that survive to this day.

You keep mentioning Josephus about genealogy being public record, but Josephus also don’t say anything about Mary’s parents, let alone her family tree.

I have mentioned this several times Joachim and Anne in several of my replies, but you seemed to ignore them, no response, which tells me that you like sticking your head in the hole. Playing ostrich show that you don’t care to learn something that you clearly don’t no about.

It is ridiculous to argue with someone who cannot look at thing objectively.

Fine, remain ignorant if you want.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You keep mentioning Josephus about genealogy being public record, but Josephus also don’t say anything about Mary’s parents, let alone her family tree.

I have mentioned this several times Joachim and Anne in several of my replies, but you seemed to ignore them, no response, which tells me that you like sticking your head in the hole. Playing ostrich show that you don’t care to learn something that you clearly don’t no about.

The whole point of having a canon of scripture is to weed out the reliable from the unreliable. The sources you rely on for the names of Joachim and Anne are not only much later than the Gospels, but they are apocryphal (for a reason)! Josephus, my non-Christian source, is not only contemporary to the times under discussion, but widely acknowledged as impartial.

It's easy to throw personal criticism around, but much harder to provide evidence for vacuous claims!

 

[gnostic]

The whole point of having a canon of scripture is to weed out the reliable from the unreliable. The sources you rely on for the names of Joachim and Anne are not only much later than the Gospels, but they are apocryphal (for a reason)! Josephus, my non-Christian source, is not only contemporary to the times under discussion, but widely acknowledged as impartial.

It's easy to throw personal criticism around, but much harder to provide evidence for vacuous claims!

But your reliance on Torrey’s apologetic interpretations about Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli, is about a hundred-year-old speculation, which is nearly 1900 years later. How is that any better.

The whole Luke 3’s genealogy being Mary’s is pure speculation, with nothing to verify Torrey’s and your claims.

Beside that Luke’s version cannot be verified of Nathan to Mary line, as there are no other source, tell me is completely fabricated family tree.

Likewise with Matthew 1’s genealogy, from Abuid to Jacob is pure inventions of the author.

And from Solomon to Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), you have 4 missing generations, just so the gospel can reduce the generations to create 2nd 14-generation symmetry. This 14-generation between David and Jehoiachin by (4) omissions is another invention of the author just so there are convenient magic number of 14.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you could provide evidence that was credible then l might believe it!

Please.

The only "evidence" that you'll consider "credible", is the "evidence" that you can marry with your a priori religious dogmatic beliefs.

Anything else will be discarded or distorted on the spot.

And this thread has been fine evidence of that fact.

 

[Redemptionsong]

But your reliance on Torrey’s apologetic interpretations about Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli, is about a hundred-year-old speculation, which is nearly 1900 years later. How is that any better.

The whole Luke 3’s genealogy being Mary’s is pure speculation, with nothing to verify Torrey’s and your claims.

Beside that Luke’s version cannot be verified of Nathan to Mary line, as there are no other source, tell me is completely fabricated family tree.

Likewise with Matthew 1’s genealogy, from Abuid to Jacob is pure inventions of the author.

And from Solomon to Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), you have 4 missing generations, just so the gospel can reduce the generations to create 2nd 14-generation symmetry. This 14-generation between David and Jehoiachin by (4) omissions is another invention of the author just so there are convenient magic number of 14.

It's not just Torrey that holds this view. It's a belief that can be traced back through many Christian writers. Matthew records Joseph's genealogy, and Luke records Mary's genealogy.

As regards the missing generations, it's not a problem to miss out certain generations when you know that the Hebrew scriptures contain the complete record. The New Testament scriptures were always seen as a continuation of what went before. Christ's appearance is the fulfilment of the law, as he himself stated.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Please.

The only "evidence" that you'll consider "credible", is the "evidence" that you can marry with your a priori religious dogmatic beliefs.

Anything else will be discarded or distorted on the spot.

And this thread has been fine evidence of that fact.

This thread has shown that casual acceptance of internet sources is not real research, and that you need to look deeper if you wish to discover the truth. Josephus has certainly supplied us with enough evidence to demonstrate:
1. That the birth of Jesus cannot be associated with the 6 CE census of Cyrenius.
2. That the genealogies of Mary and Joseph were available in the public records, confirming their accuracy.
3. That the Gospels, and epistles of Peter and Paul, must have been written before the Jewish Wars of 66-73 CE.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread has shown that casual acceptance of internet sources is not real research

 

[gnostic]

It's not just Torrey that holds this view. It's a belief that can be traced back through many Christian writers. Matthew records Joseph's genealogy, and Luke records Mary's genealogy.

As regards the missing generations, it's not a problem to miss out certain generations when you know that the Hebrew scriptures contain the complete record. The New Testament scriptures were always seen as a continuation of what went before. Christ's appearance is the fulfilment of the law, as he himself stated.

Again and again you have demonstrate that you have no sources that Mary’s father was Heli.

All you are doing is basing your personal opinions on speculations and interpretations of some modern apologist authors, whose scholarships support from ancient sources.

Your own scholarship are based on pure fabrication and circular reasoning, just like Torres’s. You don’t seem to understand that you cannot use the gospel of Luke’s genealogy to prove itself, because that’s just typical circular reasoning.

The only way to prove that Luke’s genealogy were Mary, is to have another ancient source (or two or more) that explicitly say “Mary daughter of Heli” or “Heli father of Mary”…

…but you have no such sources that back up your opinion or claim.

you keep repeating that genealogies of every ones were of public records, if that were so, you should have produced your sources, so either you are lying to me or there are no other genealogy exist from Nathan to Heli.

you keep bringing up Josephus, but Josephus never named Mary’s father or Joseph’s father in his works because don’t write anything about Joseph and Mary, so it is just you lying to me again.

it doesn’t surprise me that the only way to argue with me is to fabricate some lies or to rely on sources that lie.

you keep shooting your own foot with your baseless claims

 

[gnostic]

Luke was written by the same author as Acts. Acts was written before the Jewish Wars, and the Gospel of Luke was written earlier than Acts.

No it wasn’t.

There are no evidence to support the Acts were written before Josephus’ Jewish War. The Acts have been dated to somewhere between 90 and 110 CE.

The Jewish War was written about 75 CE, while Josephus himself claimed that he completed the Antiquities of the Jews in the 13th year of Domitian’s reign, hence either 93 or 94 CE.

Unlike the Gospel of Luke, we don’t know who was the real author of the gospel, and if the gospel was written in the 90s, then he couldn’t have been eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, let alone his birth.

Luke 1 to 3, seemed to be told in Mary’s point-of-view, except that Mary most likely to have died in the 30s CE. I highly doubted that a dead woman could dictate the events of her pregnancy and Jesus’ birth to the author 50 or 60 years later.

While we do know Josephus was active in the Jewish-Roman war as he was one of the leader, before he surrendered as prisoner & hostage to Vespasian, and befriended Titus.

In fact, none of the gospels were written “before” the Jewish War, not even the gospel of Mark.

The only New Testament writings that were written before the start of the Jewish-Roman war were Paul’s letters. But Paul has never personally met, nor personally witnessed Jesus’ ministry.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Again and again you have demonstrate that you have no sources that Mary’s father was Heli.

All you are doing is basing your personal opinions on speculations and interpretations of some modern apologist authors, whose scholarships support from ancient sources.

Your own scholarship are based on pure fabrication and circular reasoning, just like Torres’s. You don’t seem to understand that you cannot use the gospel of Luke’s genealogy to prove itself, because that’s just typical circular reasoning.

The only way to prove that Luke’s genealogy were Mary, is to have another ancient source (or two or more) that explicitly say “Mary daughter of Heli” or “Heli father of Mary”…

…but you have no such sources that back up your opinion or claim.

you keep repeating that genealogies of every ones were of public records, if that were so, you should have produced your sources, so either you are lying to me or there are no other genealogy exist from Nathan to Heli.

you keep bringing up Josephus, but Josephus never named Mary’s father or Joseph’s father in his works because don’t write anything about Joseph and Mary, so it is just you lying to me again.

it doesn’t surprise me that the only way to argue with me is to fabricate some lies or to rely on sources that lie.

you keep shooting your own foot with your baseless claims

The primary source for Heli is the Bible!
But, since the genealogies of the OT are brought to a close with the canon of OT scripture, the Tanakh does not provide lists that include the immediate ancestors of Jesus. This does not mean that the lists were not still in existence in Jerusalem. We know they were, because the information provided by these genealogies was used by the religious and civil authorities up until the destruction of Jerusalem.

You also keep saying the there's no mention of Mary in relation to Heli, but this has been explained. The Jewish genealogies run through the male line, so females don't appear.

The NT is about the person of Jesus Christ, and to suggest that there is no genealogy of either Joseph or Mary is complete rubbish. The whole point of having two genealogies is the demonstrste how the marriage of his parents legitimises Jesus' claim to being the Messiah.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There are no evidence to support the Acts were written before Josephus’ Jewish War. The Acts have been dated to somewhere between 90 and 110 CE.

There is very good evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written before 70 CE. By association, it means both Matthew and Mark must also have been in existence.

Why do you think there is no mention of the events of 66-73 CE in the book of Acts?

[See post 737]

 

[gnostic]

The primary source for Heli is the Bible!

The only source to Heli is only the gospel of Luke, and that say he is Joseph’s father. Mary isn’t mentioned being his daughter.

Not of the other books have in the New Testament mentioned Heli at all.

No where else (other sources) in the first two centuries (1st and 2nd centuries CE) mentioned anything regarding to Heli at all, especially not as the father of Mary.

But, from the 2nd century CE and onwards, Mary was considered as the daughter of Joachim and Anne, from the apocrypha Gospel of James.

Early churches accepted Joachim being her father, since the 2nd century, not Heli. And all the churches still accepted Joachim, the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox, the Syrian Orthodox, the Coptic Church, etc.

The only time you start hearing about Heli being father to Mary, are from THE 20th CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS BY CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS.

So basically, you really have nothing but words like from Torrey.

I may no longer believe the Bible and I may now be agnostic, but I understand how to follow sources, whether they be historical or religious or legend or mythological.

And you keep talking about some official records on genealogy in Jerusalem, but unless you are royal, aristocrats or belong to priesthood, they don’t keep official genealogies of everyone, especially not genealogy whose father was a carpenter (Joseph).

Beside that, the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written during the 80s or later, there were no around to dictate Jesus’ genealogy.

Since Joseph was never named after the first few chapters of each gospels (Matthew & Luke), it is most likely Joseph died before Jesus’ ministry, and Mary appeared to have died some times in the 30s, I highly doubt either of them dictated to whoever wrote these 2 gospels.

All you really have are modern interpretations or speculations by some half-*** Christian apologists about Heli being Mary’s father, but no sources backed up such claims, which make your claims foolishly illogical and unsubstantiated.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The only source to Heli is only the gospel of Luke, and that say he is Joseph’s father. Mary isn’t mentioned being his daughter.

Not of the other books have in the New Testament mentioned Heli at all.

No where else (other sources) in the first two centuries (1st and 2nd centuries CE) mentioned anything regarding to Heli at all, especially not as the father of Mary.

But, from the 2nd century CE and onwards, Mary was considered as the daughter of Joachim and Anne, from the apocrypha Gospel of James.

Early churches accepted Joachim being her father, since the 2nd century, not Heli. And all the churches still accepted Joachim, the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox, the Syrian Orthodox, the Coptic Church, etc.

The only time you start hearing about Heli being father to Mary, are from THE 20th CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS BY CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS.

So basically, you really have nothing but words like from Torrey.

I may no longer believe the Bible and I may now be agnostic, but I understand how to follow sources, whether they be historical or religious or legend or mythological.

And you keep talking about some official records on genealogy in Jerusalem, but unless you are royal, aristocrats or belong to priesthood, they don’t keep official genealogies of everyone, especially not genealogy whose father was a carpenter (Joseph).

Beside that, the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written during the 80s or later, there were no around to dictate Jesus’ genealogy.

Since Joseph was never named after the first few chapters of each gospels (Matthew & Luke), it is most likely Joseph died before Jesus’ ministry, and Mary appeared to have died some times in the 30s, I highly doubt either of them dictated to whoever wrote these 2 gospels.

All you really have are modern interpretations or speculations by some half-*** Christian apologists about Heli being Mary’s father, but no sources backed up such claims, which make your claims foolishly illogical and unsubstantiated.

Your argument falls down on a number of counts. The first is that Luke records Mary's genealogy. Matthew records Joseph's genealogy, and the two are quite distinct. Joseph's genealogy passes forward through Solomon, whereas Mary's passes back through Nathan. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David, but only Solomon was of the royal line. This means that Jesus only had one natural line, and that was the line through his mother! And, since Mary conceived miraculously, it adds 'And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli...'

And just because we can no longer find evidence of Heli does not mean he didn't exist. As l have demonstrated from Josephus, the genealogical records of priests and royalty were available in the public records. Given that both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David, both would have had records in the public offices.

I have to say that l would far sooner believe the record that has come down to us in the canon of scripture, than to accept an apocryphal tradition.

Then we have some additional testimonies that you appear to overlook. Luke's Gospel was written well before the Jewish wars and the destruction of the temple, because Luke's second treatise was completed before these events. That means both books were completed before 70 CE.

If the crucifixion took place in about 33 CE, then Mary was still alive and able to give her own testimony of her parentage. Mary lived under the same roof as John following the crucifixion (John 19:25-27). Interestingly, there were other woman at the scene who would also have known details of Mary's life, including Mary's own sister! Yet, somehow, you think that these eyewitnesses could not give an accurate account of their parent's names!

So, what you criticise as Protestant apologetics, is actually the most reliable of evidence, because it looks to the earliest testimonies found in the Biblical record; the very ones that had the apostles' 'stamp' of approval.

 

[syo]

The first cause is self-evident.

 

[gnostic]

Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David, but only Solomon was of the royal line.

I know that.

Both genealogies profess that that these two lines were of Jesus’ ancestors, but both stated that these two lines were that of Joseph’s genealogies, not Mary’s genealogy.

Your argument falls down on a number of counts. The first is that Luke records Mary's genealogy. Matthew records Joseph's genealogy, and the two are quite distinct. Joseph's genealogy passes forward through Solomon, whereas Mary's passes back through Nathan. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David, but only Solomon was of the royal line. This means that Jesus only had one natural line, and that was the line through his mother! And, since Mary conceived miraculously, it adds 'And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli...'

No, that based on modern interpretations by Christian apologists.

And you are misreading Luke 3;23,

23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli

It is Joseph that Jesus was “thought as the son of Joseph”, not “Joseph thought as son of Heli”.

It simply say Joseph son of Heli, not Joseph thought of son of Heli.

Man, all you Christian apologists are the same.

You would deliberately misinterpreted Luke 3:23 passage. You are misreading the context in parentheses “(was thought of)”.

The “as was thought” is the connection between Jesus with Joseph, not between Joseph with Heli.

You had just deliberately lie to me.

There is no “Mary daughter of Heli” in Luke 3:23. There is only “Joseph son of Heli”.

Apologists have the tendencies to lie, to misinterpret, to misinform, any way to win an argument.