The Christmas Story

[Beetow]

~
There are numbers of Christians, and non Christians alike, whose knowledge of
Jesus and his family is pretty much limited to Xmas cards, television specials,
Hollywood movies, Broadway & school plays, fragmentary information, and folklore.
Well; I think we can do better.

Hello; and welcome to a series of comments that address specific details relative to
Jesus' mom, Jesus' dad, the Shepherds, the Star, the Taxation, Herod, Mary's
atonements, Jesus in yeshiva, and Jesus' tribal affiliation.

Buen Camino
(Pleasant Journey)
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Jesus' Mom

● Luke 1:31-33 . . Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you
shall name him Jesus . . and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his
father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever.

Jesus' genealogy is relatively unimportant to the average Gentile, whereas very
important to Jews because only David's biological posterity qualify to ascend his
throne and govern the people of Israel.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

In other words: baby Jesus was a biological Jew rather than an artificial Jew.

FAQ: From whence did baby Jesus obtain a Y chromosome for his male gender?

REPLY: In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back, top to
bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from Adam's body.
(Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman from material taken from
a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to construct a teensy little
chromosome from a woman's body.

Seeing as how Eve is the mother of all women (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26) then any
material taken from Mary's body to construct a Y chromosome for baby Jesus would
be owed to Eve's body; and by construction: to Adam's body.

The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken from
Mary's body wouldn't be an alien substance created ex nihilo; but would be 100%
natural, and easily traceable all the way back to Eve, and from thence to the very
dust that was used to construct Adam's body.

I sincerely believe that what I suggest herein actually took place when the power of
the Most High overshadowed Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my suggestion is
true, then little Jesus was thoroughly a Jew-- biologically descended not only from
David and Abraham as all other Jews, but also from the Man that God created in
the book of Genesis.

● Heb 2:17 . . He had to be made like his brethren in every way.

FAQ: You say Jesus was David's biological descendant. How is that possible if he
had God's blood in his flesh.

REPLY: According to Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Well then, in
order for Jesus to be David's bona fides biological posterity, he had to have human
blood in his flesh due to the fact that his biological ancestor David was human. In
point of fact, according to Acts 17:16, all truly human men descend from one and
the same human ancestor.

One of the oldest creeds in the book states that Jesus is fully God and fully Man.
Well that creed would be grossly mistaken if something other than Adam's life was
in Jesus' blood. Plus: on numerous occasions Jesus referred to himself as "son of
Man" which, likewise, would be patently false were Adam's life not in his blood.
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Jesus' Dad

Joseph had no part in Jesus' conception. (Matt 1:18-19 & Luke 1:31-35)

Even so; Mary's boy is positioned in Joseph's genealogy. (Matt 1:1-17)

It's sometimes assumed Jesus was Joseph's foster child. But foster kids have no
place in a man's family tree. Seeing as how Jesus wasn't Joseph's biological
progeny, then the only way he could be legally placed in Joseph's genealogy was by
adoption, and it came about like this:

Joseph was instructed give Mary's baby the name Jesus. (Matt 1:21)

Joseph complied. (Matt 1:25)

In ancient Israel, when a man stood with a woman to name her child, it became
officially his (cf. Luke 1:13 & Luke 1:59-63). So from then on the neighbors, and
Jesus' mom, knew him as Joseph's son. (Luke 2:27-28, Luke 2:41, Luke 2:48, &
Luke 4:22)

FAQ: Why make an issue out of Jesus' association with Joseph?

REPLY: Because Jesus was selected of God to inherit David's throne. (Luke 1:32
33)

The thing is: David's throne never passes down to his posterity via women; it
always passes down via the men in his line, viz: Mary was able to give her son a
biological connection to David, but she couldn't give him the throne.

Also: the throne has to come down via David's son Solomon. (1Kings 1:13 &
1Chron 22:9-10) Joseph is related to Solomon. (Matt 1:6 and Matt 1:16)

Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to adopt Mary's boy in order to place
the lad in Solomon's genealogy and thus validate him as a rightful heir to the
throne.

FAQ: Since when did the Jews begin placing men in positions of power by adoption?

REPLY: Jacob was the first. He took possession of Joseph's two sons Manasseh &
Ephraim, and installed them as tribal heads equal in position to Jacob's eldest sons
Reuben and Simeon. (Gen 48:5-6)
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Bethlehem's Shepherds

● Luke 2:8-12 . . Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and
keeping the night watch over their flock. The angel of The Lord appeared to them,
and the glory of The Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.

. . .The angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good
news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a
savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.

The angel announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines a "savior" as one who
rescues.

Rescuing is what the Coast Guard does when boats capsize. Rescuing is what
Firemen do when people are trapped inside burning buildings. Rescuing is what
mountaineer teams do when climbers are in trouble. Rescuing is what EMT
paramedics do when someone needs to get to a hospital in a hurry; and kept alive
till they arrive. Rescuing is what surgeons do when someone needs an organ
transplant.

I could go on and on giving example of rescuer after rescuer; but I think we get the
idea. The New Testament's Jesus is like that: he rescues people from the wrath of
God-- people who not only fully deserve it, but definitely in line to get it; and with
no humanly possible way to avoid it.

Now; of what real benefit would the savior of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if he
couldn't guarantee a fail-safe rescue from the wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit
to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent ninny that nobody could rely on.

But, if a savior were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it a
completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin proof,
human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy
proof, reprobate-proof, back-sliding proof, Sermon on the Mount-proof, God-proof,
Devil-proof, irrevocable rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection from
future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy?

I think just about everybody concerned about ending up on the wrong side of things
would have to agree with me that news like that would not only most certainly be
good; but also cause for celebration, and ecstatic happiness.

FAQ: Why did the angel appear to only the shepherds?

REPLY: One possibility is that the date of Messiah's appearance was accurately
predicted in advance by the prophet Daniel to occur on what we know as Palm
Sunday (a.k.a. the Triumphal Entry) but the date of Messiah's birth in Bethlehem
wasn't predicted. Consequently, those sheep guys were the only audience at hand
instead of the thousands that one might expect at such a significant event.
_

 

[Beetow]

~
The Wise Men And Their Star

The verse below is deliberately misquoted. Watch for the revision.

● Matt 2:2 . . Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have followed his
star from the east

No, they didn't follow Jesus' star from the east; rather, they saw it in the east, i.e.
their local sky.

Jerusalem was a logical destination seeing as how it was Israel's capital city.
Personally I think the wise men fully expected to find the new king quartered right
there in Jerusalem rather than elsewhere; so their inquiry "where is he" was
probably not meant for asking directions to another town.

● Matt 2:9 . . After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star
they had seen in the east went ahead of them.

They likely thought they had seen the last of that star back home, so it was very
reassuring to see it again; and this time as a guiding light rather than a sign.

● Matt 2:10 . . When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.

NOTE: As the planet turns, stars appear to move across the sky from the east
towards the west. Their star moved directly south, and also came to a stop; which
should alert planetarium managers that it wasn't an astronomical object.

● Matt 2:9 . . It stopped over the place where the child was.

Normal celestial objects are so far out in space that it is nigh unto impossible to tell
the exact spot on earth where one of them is at any given moment without special
instruments; so I think we can be reasonably confident that this star was low
enough that there was no mistaking the exact house where young Jesus was
lodged. In other words; this star wasn't a star, rather, it was a God-given
apparition.

Now this is curious. The shepherds were given no guide. They had to conduct a
house to house search for baby Jesus; and their target was different too. The
shepherds went looking for a savior whereas the wise men were seeking a
monarch.

FAQ: How did the wise men know their star was associated with the Jews?

REPLY: Matt 2:12 strongly suggests their entire odyssey was supervised from start
to finish so that when the men spotted the star back home in the east, they were at
the same time informed by God as to its purpose and urged to pack up and head
for the land of Israel; specifically the city of Jerusalem because that's always been a
sort of Washington DC for David's dynasty.

I think the wise men fully expected to find the young king there because they didn't
inquire as to where he'd be born, rather: where is he that "is born" because they
were sure in their own minds that he was already out and about even before they
left home.

● Matt 2:11 . . On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary,
and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and
presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

The wise men revered Jesus not as a deity, rather, as a Jewish monarch.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying: Where is he that
is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to
worship him." (Matt 2:1-2)

The Greek word for "worship" in that verse is a very general word depicting
adoration, obeisance, homage, and/or submission relative to one's betters,
superiors, and/or folks we admire; either human or divine.

The gifts they gave Jesus were common trade items of that day, and the kinds of
things we'd expect to be offered a king as tribute. No doubt all three items came in
very handy to finance the family's temporary residence in Egypt; especially the
gold. (Matt 2:13-15)
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Jesus In Bethlehem

● Luke 2:1-6 . .In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should
be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while
Quirinius was governing in Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.

. . . So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to
Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and
was expecting a child.

The distance from Nazareth, north of Jerusalem, to Bethlehem south of Jerusalem;
is about 68 line-of-sight miles, and roughly 93 road miles.

I don't know why artists always depict Mary traveling those 93 miles on donkey
back when the mode of transportation isn't mentioned. Personally, I don't think
Joseph and his fiancée traveled to Bethlehem alone anyway, but rather, in the
company of their kin just as they did when Jesus was 12 years old. (Luke 2:41-45)
Seeing as how Mary and Joseph were of the house and lineage of David, then their
kinfolk would've been too.

Mary was in her third trimester and ready to deliver. In her condition, the padded
bed of a wagon makes far more sense than the back of an animal; and no doubt
Joseph's and Mary's relatives pooled their resources and made sure she was
comfortable.

Mr. Quirinius (a.k.a. Cyrenius) is an historical figure. His name is mentioned in Res
Gestae-- The Deeds of Augustus, by Augustus --placing Quirinius as consul as early
as 12 BC.

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions that Quirinius was appointed by Augustus to
be an advisor to his young son Caius Caesar in Armenia.

Although Quirinius wasn't seated as a head of state at this time, he was actively
governing in Syria in a capacity that we today might call a bureaucrat.

The first century historian Josephus wrote: "Quirinius, a Roman senator who had
gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them all until he had
become consul, was appointed governor of Syria by Caesar and was given the task
of assessing property there and in Judea."

Webster's defines a consul as: an official appointed by a government to reside in a
foreign country to represent the commercial interests of citizens of the appointing
country.

NOTE: It's handy to know something about Quirinius' political status because critics
are fond of using him to challenge the Bible's historical accuracy. They are correct
in that he wasn't a head of State at the time, nevertheless, he was active in
government; and was apparently quite proficient.
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Herod

● Matt 2:7-8 . .Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the
exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and
make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I
too may go and worship him.

Well; the visitors might've returned had not God intervened.

● Matt 2:11-12 . . And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod,
they returned to their country by another route.

That was likely a safety measure to prevent Herod from knowing where to find the
lad because rulers in that day were typically Machiavellian, tyrannical, and despotic
- they didn't just crush potential threats to their power; they utterly annihilated it;
and as subsequent events demonstrate, ol' Herod had neither conscience nor
concern for child welfare.

** Saddam Hussein's first order of business upon taking control of Iraq was to
order the executions of some of his closest supporters because they weren't totally
onboard with his ideals. North Korea's Kim Jong-Un is suspected of ordering the
murder of his uncle for similar reasons.

● Matt 2:16a . .Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth

There's really nothing in the story to even remotely suggest that the wise men
made a fool out of Herod and/or jeered him. They simply failed to comply with his
wishes; which in his mind wasn't merely refusal of his request, but a failure to take
him seriously.

● Matt 2:16b . . He sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time
which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

The Greek word for "coasts" is a mite ambiguous. It technically indicates borders,
but can also indicate regions and/or environs and surrounding areas.

That verse is commonly appropriated to calculate Jesus' age relative to when the
wise men visited him and his mother. But the verse merely indicates the passage of
time since Herod interviewed the men; which is quite useless for calculating Jesus'
age seeing as how he was already born before the men even left their country--
how long before they left their country, nobody knows for sure.

● Matt 2:17-18 . .Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Jer 31:15)

Ramah was roughly six miles north of Jerusalem, while Bethlehem is roughly the
same distance south in the opposite direction.

Ramah was settled by the people of Rachel's son Benjamin, so that any weeping
done by the mothers in that area would be reckoned, by heritage, to be Rachel's
weeping.

Anyway; what this suggests to me is that the slaughter of the innocents extended
beyond the community of Bethlehem. Were we to set a draftsman's compass to a
radius equal to the distance between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and scribe a circle
with Jerusalem at the center, it would yield a pretty good idea of the area covered
by Herod's death squads-- roughly 113 square miles.

But Herod's efforts were futile. Jesus wasn't even in the country; Joseph had moved
the child and his mother down into Egypt before all the killing began (Matt 2:13)
and in time, Herod died and his danger to Jesus' survival died with him. (Matt 2:19-23)
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Mary's Atonements

● Luke 2:22-25 . .And when the days for their purification according to the law of
Moses were completed, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the
Lord (as it is written in the law of The Lord: "Every first-born male that opens the
womb shall be consecrated to The Lord" and to offer a sacrifice according to what
was said in the law of The Lord: "A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

The days of purification for a boy baby are a total of 40 days. (Lev 12:1-4)

The dollar-value of Mary's offerings attest to her and Joseph's status as low-income
Israelis. (Lev 12:6-8)

Too many Gentiles are quick to assume Mary's offerings prove she was a sinner;
but one of those birds was for Jesus in lieu of the lamb that the law mandates for
redeeming boy babies; so then, if Mary's offering proves she's a sinner; then by
association, the offering for Jesus proves the very same thing. (Ex 13:11-13)

Joseph's wife brought those offerings for herself and Jesus not because she and her
son were sinners, but primarily because that is what the law of The Lord requires
from Jewish mothers; and it doesn't matter whether a woman is a sinner or a non
sinner nor whether the baby is a sinner or a non-sinner. It would have been sin for
Jesus' mother to disobey that law, and would have put her baby in jeopardy of its
life. She had to bring the birds for her and Jesus simply because it was the right
thing for Jewish mothers to do.

Another case in point of "the right thing to do" is John the Baptist. His mission was
a baptism unto repentance (Matt 3:11). Did Jesus need repentance? No; but he
submitted himself to John's baptism because it was the right thing to do seeing as
John's mission was God-given. (Matt 3:13-15)

This principle is applicable in a number of ways, for instance at Matt 11:28-30
where Jesus said:

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take
my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and
you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

When someone is convinced that Christ came into the world on a special mission
from God, then the right thing for them to do is RSVP Jesus and tell him, in so
many words, that maybe they don't know yet exactly what the rest might be that
he was talking about, but they would like to be in on it just the same.
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Jesus In Yeshiva

● Luke 2:41-50 . . Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of
the Passover. And when he became twelve, they went up there according to the
custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of
days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.

. . . But his parents were unaware of it, but supposed him to be in the caravan, and
went a day's journey; and they began looking for him among their relatives and
acquaintances. When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for
him.

. . .Then, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the
teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him
were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

. . .When they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said to him: Son,
why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously
looking for you. And he said to them: Why is it that you were looking for me? Did
you not know that I must be about my Father's business?

● Luke 2:51 . . . But they did not understand the statement which He had made to
them.

Well; I don't quite understand it either, but one thing I do know is that Jesus wasn't
rebellious: he was micromanaged by a higher power than his parents.

● John 4:34 . . My food, said Jesus, is to do the will of him who sent me

● John 6:38 . . I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will
of Him who sent me

● John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative

● John 8:29 . . He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I
do always those things that please Him.

● John 14:31 . .That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father
gave me commandment, even so I do.

NOTE: Other than that one instance of what at first appears to be an assertion of
independence; Jesus was actually a good kid.

● Luke 2:51 . .Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them

Anyway, point being: it's commonly assumed that when the Word of John 1:1-3
came into the world as the flesh of John 1:14, that he came as a divine child. And
it's also commonly assumed that he came with all the wisdom of God prepackaged
in his little baby skull. But no, the Word came into the world as a Jewish child; and
he needed to study his people's religion just the same as any other kid on the
block.

But the Word's flesh had a very large advantage over the other kids. God equipped
Jesus with an unlimited measure of His spirit (Isa 11:1-2 & John 3:34) which made
him not only a quick learner, but also an astute learner, i.e. young Jesus was every
Sunday school teacher's dream: a kid that gets it. (Luke 2:52)
_

 

[Beetow]

~
Mary's Tribal Affiliation

It's sometimes alleged that Jesus' mom was of the tribe of Levi because of the
wording of Luke 1:36 which says:

"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age:
and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Whereas Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5) Jesus' mom was of the
tribe of Judah. (Luke 1:32, Rom 1:3, and Heb 7:14)

The heads of both those two tribes were Leah's offspring. (Gen 35:23)

Ergo: The women were cousins via a grandmother in common.

** Had Jesus' mom descended from Levi, her little boy would've failed to qualify as
an heir in line for David's throne because all candidates must first of all be one of
Judah's descendants; no exceptions.

● Gen 49:10 . .The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his
descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all
nations will obey. (cf. Dan 7:13-14)
_

 

[Hekuran]

~
Mary's Tribal Affiliation

It's sometimes alleged that Jesus' mom was of the tribe of Levi because of the
wording of Luke 1:36 which says:

"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age:
and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Whereas Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5) Jesus' mom was of the
tribe of Judah. (Luke 1:32, Rom 1:3, and Heb 7:14)

The heads of both those two tribes were Leah's offspring. (Gen 35:23)

Ergo: The women were cousins via a grandmother in common.

** Had Jesus' mom descended from Levi, her little boy would've failed to qualify as
an heir in line for David's throne because all candidates must first of all be one of
Judah's descendants; no exceptions.

● Gen 49:10 . .The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his
descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all
nations will obey. (cf. Dan 7:13-14)
_

Both Matthew and Luke show Jesus descended from David through Joseph, neither make mention of Mary's lineage.

 

[Beetow]

Both Matthew and Luke show Jesus descended from David through Joseph, neither
make mention of Mary's lineage.

In Matthew's genealogy, Joseph descends from Solomon, whereas Luke's has him
descending from Solomon's brother Nathan.

Solomon and Nathan weren't distant kin. According to 1Chron 3:5 they were
siblings; both born of David & Bathsheba (a.k.a. Bathshua).

I have no clue how it's possible for siblings to both be somebody's grandfather
when it's more likely that one of them would be an uncle.

NOTE: Personally I do not recommend using either of the two genealogies to show
Jesus connection to David because there's a serious question about the listings of
Shieltiel and Zerubbabel.

In Matthew's genealogy the two men are linked to David via Solomon whereas in
Luke's genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as Abihud
in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names so we
shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies. However, they are
listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot expect reasonable
people to accept as mere coincidence.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how best to
resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel in both
genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd have to consider the data
compromised; which is unfortunate because if we disregard Luke's genealogy, then
we pretty much have to disregard Matthew's too.

So the situation with Jesus' genealogies is such that I think it best to go about
establishing his family history from a different angle.
_

 

[Hekuran]

In Matthew's genealogy, Joseph descends from Solomon, whereas Luke's has him
descending from Solomon's brother Nathan.

Solomon and Nathan weren't distant kin. According to 1Chron 3:5 they were
siblings; both born of David & Bathsheba (a.k.a. Bathshua).

I have no clue how it's possible for siblings to both be somebody's grandfather
when it's more likely that one of them would be an uncle.

NOTE: Personally I do not recommend using either of the two genealogies to show
Jesus connection to David because there's a serious question about the listings of
Shieltiel and Zerubbabel.

In Matthew's genealogy the two men are linked to David via Solomon whereas in
Luke's genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as Abihud
in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names so we
shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies. However, they are
listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot expect reasonable
people to accept as mere coincidence.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how best to
resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel in both
genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd have to consider the data
compromised; which is unfortunate because if we disregard Luke's genealogy, then
we pretty much have to disregard Matthew's too.

So the situation with Jesus' genealogies is such that I think it best to go about
establishing his family history from a different angle.
_

Or to worry less about finding ways to iron out the differences in the two genealogies and to give more time and thought to what Matthew and Luke were trying to say by including Jesus lineage at the beginning of their accounts of the gospel.

Neither of them seemed to want to avoid reckoning Jesus' link to David through his father Joseph, so I don't have a problem with it either.