Rufus wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:cs421b$gll$1{at}nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rufus wrote:
> > >  wrote in message
> > > news:crgsut$o7s$1{at}nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rufus wrote:
> > > > ,snip>
> > > > > Jesus was descended from David on His mother's side as well.
> >
> > > > Interesting!    What lead you to that coclusion?
> > > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > Popular speculation, more than anything else.  Luke's geneaology
> > diverges
> > > sufficiantly from that of Matthew's that such a specualtion has
been
> > made
> > > (and I think reasonably so).
> >
> > So speculation was stated  just as if it were fact.  And it was
second
> > hand speculation at that.
> >
> > There is nothing in scripture that says Mary descended from David.
> > But, I know she did!   Because I dreamed last night that she
descended
> > from David, and therefore I think it reasonably could be so. ;-)
>
> Fruitless sarcasm noted.  That being said, do you have a reasonable
> explanation for the divergence of the genealogies in Matthew and
Luke?
>
> Rufus.

I have worked on my own genealogy.  My sources did not always agree.
Luke may have had a different source for his information than did
Matthew.   For some reason, which I do not know,  Luke did not choose
to follow exactly Matthew's account of Joseph's ancestry.

Yes, I know some think that as the two genealogies of Joseph differ,
one then must be a genealogy of Mary. They accept that speculation as
convincing evidence.  The frightening thing is that those people
sometimes are called on for jury duty.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/19/05 10:34:34 AM ---