Royal Lineage had to be through King Solomon not Nathan

Jesus had to be in Solomon's Lineage to qualify for Messiahship

If Jesus’ lineage were through the David’s son Nathan he would be disqualified to be the Messiah, king of the Jews. So, whether the geneology in Luke belongs to Mary or Joseph really a mute point. The important geneology is the one in Matthew, which is indisputably of Joseph. When the word “begat” is used there is without a doubt that the it is a physical lineage:

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary…

The geneology in Matthew, which is obviously and indesputably of Joseph, is the one that has Solomon in the lineage. Comparing the following passages it is easy to see that Solomon has to be in the Messiah’s lineage:

Mary’s lineage is not the one in Luke

Fundamentalists claim that the royal bloodline had to be through Mary since Jesus’ had no earthly father and the geneology in Luke is hers. However, this geneology does not say it was Mary’s but Joseph’s. They also claim that this geneology is hers because Heli was her father. The motive behind this is to try to prove that though Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus and the royal bloodline came through her lineage.

The source they use to try to prove that Heli is Mary’s father the is in a book of the Talmud called Hagigah that contains a questionable translation of a passage.

Mary the Daughter of Heli?

The statement that Mary the daughter of Heli [sic] was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. It reads thus:

“R. Eliezer bar Yos’e said that he saw Miriam, the daughter of ‘LYBSLYM, hanging the nipples of her breasts. R. Yost b. Hanina said, “The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear.” (The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Vol. 20: “Hagigah and Moed Qatan.”)

According to Jewish scholars the word LYBSLYM incorrectly translated to Eli. Dr. David Kraemer, of the Jewish Theological Seminary said that “LYBSLYM” is more accurately “alei betzalim,” and does NOT literally translate as “Heli/Eli

Scholar Norvall Geldenhuys echoes this sentiment as he leans on the work of respected German scholars Strack and Billerbeck who also do not see any connection:

“The Miriam, daughter of Eli, who is referred to in the Talmud (Chagigah 77d), has in all probability nothing to do with Mary the mother of Jesus, as is made plain in Strack-Billerbeck ( in loc .)” (Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke , 154 n. 5). (Source: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mary_genealogy_talmud.html)

The True Story of Mary’s Birth

According to James, the brother of Jesus, in the gospel written by Matthew, “The Gospel of the Birth of Mary”, her parents were Joachim and Ana. Joseph was Heli’s step son by Levirite marriage.	Joachim and Anna: Mary's Parents
Zachariah and Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, were Levites which makes Mary a Levite on her mother’s side. According to the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, (before it was altered) “Mary her self was not of the tribe of Judah but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim”.

Mary was a Levite, not of the tribe of Judah

In the primitive ages there was a Gospel extant bearing this name, attributed to St. Matthew, and received as genuine and authentic by several of the ancient Christian sects. It is to be found in the works of Jerome, a Father of the Church, who flourished in the fourth century, from whence the present translation is made. His contemporaries, Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, and Austin, also mention a Gospel under this title.

The ancient copies differed from Jerome’s, for from one of them the learned Faustus, a native of Britain, who became Bishop of Riez, in Provence, endeavoured to prove that Christ was not the Son of God till after his baptism; and that he was not of the house of David and tribe of Judah, because, according to the Gospel he cited, the Virgin herself was not of this tribe, but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim.

(source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob05.htm http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/mary.htm)

What this is saying is that there were copies of the “Gospel or the Birth of Mary” that were in circulation that were different than Jerome’s copies, were genuine and authentic according to several of the ancient Christian sects, and were “ancient” manuscripts. In other words, they were older than Jerome’s copies and more accurate. It speaks of Jerome: “from whence the present transaltion is made”, which seems to indicate that it was by his hand the copies were altered.

Why the Gospel of the Birth of Mary was corrupted

It is for obvious reasons that This Gospel was altered — so that it would be in harmony with the doctrine of the church that Mary was of the royal lineage of David and was born of a virgin. This is how the original read:

the virgin was of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim

And the original was replaced with this:

THE blessed and ever glorious Virgin Mary, sprung from the royal race and family of David

It even has that familiar smack of the catholic church: “blessed and ever glorious”. All we have today is a greek translation from the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. The originals, which we know did in fact exist, are “lost” (or destroyed) as are all the rest of the original uncorrupted autographs (original writings) of the words of Jesus and his disciples.

However, by the sixth century many people had already read the original copy of this Gospel originally written by the hand of Matthew, before it was altered by Jerome, and was very popular. So the only thing the church could do was to declare it apocryphal. This left the church with no history of Mary’s background, so they invented the story that the geneology in Luke was Mary’s and not of Joseph since it is indisputably that the geneology in Matthew is of Joseph.

Faustus, bishop of Riez, cites this same gospel concerning the parentage of Mary. But the apocryphal gospel, ‘The Birth of Mary,’ still extant, is of a totally different character (http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar33.htm)

according to the Gospel he [Faustus] cited, the Virgin herself was not of this tribe [of Judah], but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim. (http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/mary.htm)

For those who don’t know about Jewish history, a man could be a priest ONLY if he were from the tribe of Levi and a Levite priest could ONLY marry a Levite woman. We know that Mary was the cousin of Elisabeth that we know from the gospels that she was a Levite. So that makes Mary’s mother, Anna, a Levite woman. And if Joachim, Mary’s father were a Levite priest, it would only be logical that he would marry Anna, being a Levite woman. Therefore, Mary was a full-blooded Levite woman from both her father and mother’s sides.

The Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus (Heb 3:1)

Though Jesus doesn’t get his kingly heritage through Mary, he gets something almost as important, that he doesn’t inherit throught the lineage of Joesph — the priesthood of the Levites and his Jewishness. One thing that many people don’t know is about Jesus that, besides being a king, prophet and messiah, was also a high priest and apostle. So, though Jesus was of the Levite priesthood through Mary’s lineage, he had to have gotten his royal kingship lineage through Joseph — his biological father.

In reality what this makes Jesus is a pure thoroughbred of the priesthood through the Levitical tribe and a pure thoroughbred of the Royal kingship through David, if we look at the facts. Then what is revealed is that the story concerning Mary’s virginity before her first birth becomes obviously a forgery.

Why is there two lineages of Joseph if one of them is not Mary’s?

The question arises, “why is there two lineages of Joseph if one of them is not Mary’s?” The answer to that is because when Eli died he left no heirs to the family name, so according to custom, Jacob the brother of Eli, married Eli’s widow and the bore Joseph — that’s called a Levirite marriage. Thus, Jacob was Joseph’s physical father and Eli was Joseph’s father according to law — in this respect he had two fathers.

Mary wasn’t the Eternal Virgin the Catholic Church claims.

Now some say Joseph already had children before he married Mary which would seem to justify the catholic doctrine of Mary being an eternal virgin, but there is no evidence to support this, especially since it says that “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son”, which means (if this not a forgery also) that he knew her after her son was born. Moreover the angel told Joseph, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife“. What’s more is Mary’s children are named:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

According to the Gospel of the Nazarenes Joseph was Jesus’ Biological Father

And in the same day the angel Gabriel appeared unto Joseph in a dream and said unto him, Hail, Joseph, thou that art highly favoured, for the Fatherhood of God is with thee. Blessed art thou among men and blessed be the fruit of thy loins.

And as Joseph thought upon these words he was troubled, and the angel of the Lord said unto him, Fear not, Joseph, thou Son of David, for thou hast found favor with God, and behold thou shalt beget a child [not the "Holy Spirit"], and thou shalt call his name Jesus (correctly translated: Yeshua) for he shall save his people from their sins.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel had bidden him, and went in unto Mary [had intimate relations], his espoused bride, and she conceived in her womb the Holy One.

(Gospel of the Nazarenes 1:9,10,12)

Very first Gospel knows Joseph as Jesus’ biological father

The Jewish Christians used only what they called the gospel of Mathew, which is more commonly known as the Gospel of the Hebrews originally written in Hebrew. It is believed to be the very first gospel written around 40 BC. They did not accept the epistles of Paul as inspired of God nor the gospels that had been altered by the Greeks.

The Gospel of the Hebrews began with the story of the baptism of Jesus and had no mention of the virgin birth or any of the genealogies as exist in the canonized gospels Matthew and Luke. The majority of the Jewish Christians did not believe in the virgin birth and it was common knowledge that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.

Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

They knew Jesus to be the biological son of Joseph since he was a direct descendant of Solomon, the Son of David of whom the prophecy of the Messiah was given.