You must be trolling. The ONLY insult I threw your way was "are you trolling?" 

You can't ask me for proof when what you want proof of is me pretty much saying that you don't have proof.  It simply doesn't make sense to ask for proof of proof.

Honestly, your grammar and spelling is bad enough for me to not even be able to fully understand what you are even trying to say.  You are arguing against points I didn't make.

edit: I should point out the "proof of proof" comment means that I was pretty much saying there isn't proof and ListerofSmeg is asking I use proof.  That doesn't make sense.

Dude, seriously, what is wrong with you? Happydolphin already explained the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke, in that they give account for Jesus' TWO earthly parents. TWO parents hence TWO generation lines, that lead back to David, as prophesy predicted.

Moreover, and this might be the 3rd time I'm saying this inn this thread, Matthew and Luke were wrttien with two different audiences in mind. Matthew was written with the Jewish reader in mind so it naturally accounted for Joseph's family tree. Luke on the other was written for a Roman (or maybe Greeks, I can't remember) so it listed the Mother, Mary's family. Also, Luke was more focused on FACTS as oppsed to TRADITION, and thus if Jesus' father was REALLY some man in the sky then the only FACT was that MARY was his mother so it is her family that was important for LUKE's (as oppsed to Matthew's) readers. And I'm not just talking shit, as Luke 1:1-4 below, clearly tells you that Luke was gathering factual EVIDENCE from EYEWITNESS to present those factual accounts to Theophilus, who I assume was Roman dignitary:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

⁴ That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

You've been on this site longer than I have, so I think you should have realized by this point that smeg is not to be taken seriously. He's either a very dedicated troll, or so stubborn that convincing him of anything, regardless of how obvious, is a waste of time.

You haven't read my answers to Happydolphin, or there's something clearly wrong with you. Here, let me summarize. Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in that chapter of Luke. In fact, it clearly states that Jesus, was (as supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, etc. (paraphrased KJV). Your explanation is clearly not consistent with the words of the book.

Also, your assumption that Theophilus was a Roman (or Greek) dignitary is unbacked. Hence, your different audience argument is not backed up by anything. Your facts versus tradition argument is also very weak. So what, Matthew's account of Jesus's life is not factual, but just a description of some tradition?

Also, I wrote this out especially for you: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5551747.

Ignoring all the religious argument that's going on right now, I thought I'd post this (found it on facebook). It's apparently another side to the guy, Reza Aslan, and all the ways in which he is a massive douche (apparently). Just putting it here for those who are curious.

 Reza Aslan: Media Martyr and Bully (online article)

I still think Fox lady's a bitch for being so ignorant, though.

1) First paragraph, I’m not going to go into ancient Jewish legal right, heirship, and lineage with you, mainly because I have no desire to. If you cannot accept that the Gospels of the NT, i.e Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are written to complement each other and give a better, more complete picture of the SAME story, then we need not discuss anything more. You are supposed to marry the genealogy in Matthew with that in Luke, to give a better, more accurate picture of Jesus’ lineage. I’m not sure why you can’t accept that.

2) Second Paragraph, My FACT v TRADITION argument is supported  if you would take the time to study (not literally) both books. For example, Luke 3:1 gives details such as: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.” Such was important to the Roman reader more so than it was to a Jewish reader.

To further prove the different styles and audiences throughout the NT, Luke also wrote the book of Acts, which gives a completely different style of writing, as that book is more concern with HISTORY of the church i.e. after Jesus died.  If read with other books, e.g. Paul’s writings, Acts compliments them and gives a fuller more complete picture of the HISTORY of the early Church. If you can’t accept Acts as a book of HISTORICAL events, then this is a futile discussion.

In any event, the fact remains that there is detail that you find in Luke that you wouldn’t necessarily find in the other Gospels. Throughout the book of Luke the style of writing leads to the conclusion that Luke was more concerned with FACTs of the day and of the Story of Jesus rather than the Jewish traditions that surrounded it. That’s why Luke was not concerned about the FACT that Joseph was not Jesus natural father, but he was more concerned with the FACT of who his natural mother was (I guess as it could be proven), hence the recording of Mary’s family line instead of Joseph’s.

3) I’ll get back to your link – sorry long day at work.