Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Mr E]

There is no equivocation on this point. Jesus is the son of David through marriage. They are falsely asserting it must be through blood, which is unprecedented.

For instance, there were 2 Hebrew kingdoms. Both could not be ‘the rightful heir’ of David.

Baloney. You’ll NEVER convince a Jew of that.

David’s line is ONLY by birth and traced by who your mother is and who “seeded” her.

Go try to sell your bull at auction without establishing its pedigree. You’ll get coffee money.

 

[Mr E]

No, it's not a matter of "X's and Y's"--again, I politely disagree--by dismissing Dr. Brown and Tovia Singer, Scobac, and the Messianics plus the Sages and their writings, sweeping it under a carpet, you are doing yourself a disservice--remember, we are not only discussing the genealogies, but the total debunking of Christ, the virgin birth, the Cross, and the resurrection of Christ as fictitious.

I have given you three interpretations, Brown, One for Israel, Jews for Jesus--and now Tovia--are you familiar with these names besides Brown?

I’m the one who introduced Singer to the thread- Sherlock. I’ve listened extensively to his arguments.

 

[Mr E]

So what? The New Testament says that Jesus is from the line of David. It doesn't matter if Jews claim otherwise.

This brilliant intellectual argument and defense of Christianity has been brought to you by the great minds at MENSA. Sign up today to show others how smart you must be. Lacking all other evidence of intelligence, you can at least get a card for your wallet.

(You do have a membership card to show, don’t you?)

 

[Wrangler]

Baloney. You’ll NEVER convince a Jew of that.

I don’t have to. My job is to plant seeds. It is the job of the Holy Spirit for these seeds to grow.

No matter the topic, it is very difficult to get anyone to change their mind about anything. I only concern myself with making the best apology for Christ I can.

If I don’t convince anyone - Jew or Gentile - it is no sweat of my salvation.

 

[Wrangler]

David’s line is ONLY by birth and traced by who your mother is and who “seeded” her.

You repeat yourself despite the evidence I presented to the contrary that in Scripture adopted or step kids were considered the children of the parents.

 

[Mr E]

You repeat yourself despite the evidence I presented to the contrary that in Scripture adopted or step kids were considered the children of the parents.

What scriptural evidence did you present? Did I miss it, or did you imagine it?

 

[Johann]

I’m the one who introduced Singer to the thread- Sherlock. I’ve listened extensively to his arguments.

So do you agree with Tovia? Isn't it amazing the only person that can outsmart Singer, and Singer is avoiding him --is Dr.Brown?
I submit to you that the only reason you listen extensively to Singer is that you 1--like him, that he appeals to your intellect 2--that you believe every word he says, why not listen to Scobac and Shabir?

 

[Johann]

You're assuming facts not in evidence - and contradicted by the OT authors themselves. The Suffering Servant stories are not Messianic. Never were, never will be. Isaiah himself makes it clear the Servant is Israel. So, pretending they apply to Jesus is just sophistry. I provided the attributes for the Messiah that have been understood by the Hebrew experts for 2 millennia. Why did the gospel authors ignore scripture and pretend things like a virgin birth were valid? Was it because they knew a virgin birth story would appeal to the ignorant pagans they targeted for conversion?

Noticed @Mr E "likes" this--what are you guys doing on THIS Forum, promulgating Jewish leaven?

 

[Johann]

No, he doesn't. Isa 7:14 fails on several levels.

1- It's not even Messianic. You can't find a single Jewish scholar or rabbi - or any credible list of Messianic attributes from the Jewish experts themselves that think it is. Why? Because

2- It doesn't say anything about a virgin birth. If Isaiah was talking about a virgin giving birth, he would have used the Hebrew word for virgin - bethulah, the way he did over and over again elsewhere. The way every OT author used the word. Instead, he uses the word for a 'young woman' - almah.

3- Anyone with an IQ over 12 that has actually read the story knows that it has nothing to do with a virgin birth. It plainly tells the story of Isaiah letting King Ahaz know that before this child named Immanuel reaches a certain age of understanding, god will vanquish all of the Kinds enemies.

4- Guess what - Isaiah's prophesy FAILED. Ahaz got his ass kicked by his enemies.

These facts are well known by both Jewish, and in Truth, Christian scholars. But your gospel authors were so desperate to create a story that would appeal to their pagan marks - knowing they were ignorant of OT scripture - that they fraudulently reinvented it as Messianic prophesy and squeezed Jesus into it. That Christians are completely ignorant of this fraud is an embarrassment. But here we are, with 2 billion victims - lied to repeatedly by their church - still tithing to this multi trillion dollar scam.

I often have Christians ask me "Why are you so angry? Why do you hate god so much?"

The answer is that Christians confuse anger and hate with the profound sadness we feel for your terrible loss. You have lost your willingness and ability to Reason. You have abrogated doing the honest work of studying the bible for comprehension to the clergy that makes their living off of your blind credulity. It makes us incredibly sad to know that you are the ones that need saving. But some of us are still willing to try. All I can do is speak Truth to power.

Guess you are wrong.

 

[Johann]

A terrific discussion.... or it could be if @Jim B could grow up or grow a pair.

I like your approach in that you are interested in first understanding the Jewish perspective. This is incredibly important. There is a Jewish apologist that I really enjoy listening to.... I've posted just one of his links below, but a great deal can be gained by watching and listening to this Rabbi take on the Christian/Evangelical understanding-- which he does head on.

Christians make a terrible error when they dismiss or ignore these voices, most of whom approach the subjects more openly and honestly than 'orthodox' Christian apologists are willing to do.

I'll see if I can dig up one of his vids specific to your topic in it's entirety, but you might like hearing him out on the Isaiah/virgin birth claim that most Christians cling to.... From the Jewish point of view-- it just doesn't make sense and stands indefensible.

This last video clip between Michael and Singer is a must watch.

So are you making a terrible mistake, nobody is ignoring these voice/es--but you have a tendency to listen to one voice, are you interested in the rebuttals?

 

[Johann]

So are you making a terrible mistake

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isa_8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in Isa_8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Gen_24:43 and even in Pro_30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deu_22:28 to which may be added, that not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by παρθενος, "a virgin"; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root עלם, which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day; nor was it that the young woman was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no such intimation is given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that it was a male child, and not a female, which was predicted, as R. Saadiah Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder does not lie in the truth of the prophet's prediction, but in the greatness of the thing predicted; besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit, nor Ahaz and the house of David much comfort, since this might have been ascribed rather to a happy conjecture than to a spirit of prophecy; much less can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and honey, as soon as it was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest; since nothing is more natural to, and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids which are sweet and pleasant.
And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, "God with us", Mat_1:23 whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of his spiritual presence with his people. See Joh_1:14.


The New Covenant claim is that Messiah himself is the God of Israel who came and lived among us. He is Our
Rabbi, He is Our Teacher. As it was written by Isaiah: All your sons will be taught by the Lord” (54:13). What
better rabbi than God himself? And Our Rabbi appointed men to write down who he is and what he said, men who
were taught by him and lived with him, Jewish men empowered by the Spirit of God, who backed up their claim of
having seen the Risen One with their lives and their deaths. Which will you choose, and choose you must. Only one
claim can be true. Either the rabbis are right and through them Torah is to be followed, or Jesus is Our Rabbi and
the New Covenant Scriptures, written by those he taught, who witnessed his resurrection, contain the true
understanding of the Hebrew Bible. Go ahead. Read 100 pages of the Mishnah and the Talmud. Also read 100
pages of the New Covenant. Compare the two. Ask the God of Israel to give you wisdom, which was the prayer
of Solomon that delighted God. You will find that Messiah is waiting for you with open arms. He is willing to teach
you and lead you into the deeper things of the Torah. As the Risen Messiah said:
“These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about
me in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their
minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah should
suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be
preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:44-47)

 

[Wrangler]

What scriptural evidence did you present? Did I miss it, or did you imagine it?

See post 223.

I made references to Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, and Ezekiel 22:11, Romans 8; Galatians 4; Ephesians 1:5, etc.

 

[Johann]

I’m the one who introduced Singer to the thread- Sherlock. I’ve listened extensively to his arguments.

See post 223.

I made references to Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, and Ezekiel 22:11, Romans 8; Galatians 4; Ephesians 1:5, etc.

One problem

1) Maimonides devotes much of the “Guide for the Perplexed” to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: “God is not a mortal” (Numbers 23:19).

2) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)



To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

Interesting thread and topics @Wrangler and admire your zeal for Christ Jesus.

Adoption

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[Johann]

One problem

1) Maimonides devotes much of the “Guide for the Perplexed” to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: “God is not a mortal” (Numbers 23:19).

2) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)



To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

Interesting thread and topics @Wrangler and admire your zeal for Christ Jesus.

Adoption

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[Lizbeth]

If you are led to do so dear @Lizbeth, go to One for Israel, especially the testimonies--this has nothing to do with Hebrew roots movement, we have aggressive campaigning from Orthodox rabbis against Christians, to "inform them" that our copy and paste New Testament is "glued" to their Torah and is totally fictitious--no Christ--no crucifixion--no resurrection--no virgin birth, but then, this is my passion, I don't expect others to feel the same way.

Everywhere these rabbis go, the places are "packed" to hear the Shema--and mostly Christians are there to hear this charismatic rabbi spearheading Jews for Judaism


Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.
And thou shalt love Hashem Eloheicha b'chol l'vavcha u'vchol nafshcha uvechol modecha.
And these devarim, which I command thee today, shall be in thine lev;
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy banim, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine bais, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for an ot upon thine hand, and they shall be as totafos (ornaments [Shemot 13:16, Shabbos 57a]) between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write them upon the mezuzot of thy bais, and on thy she'arim.

Shalom to you and family
J.

Johann, I'm having trouble catching up with myself lately, but the lights are starting to come on with regard to this subject....thank you for kindly bringing it to our attention and to the OP for starting this thread! I think you are all very right in being alert and paying attention to this and warning against it! And Christians need to be praying and arming up and sharpening our swords to know how to give an answer to what the Jews for Judaism movement is saying in trying to capture souls and undermine the fundamentals of our faith!

Brother....a few years ago the Lord warned me of a very strong deception associated with the new temple that will be built in Jerusalem, it was as though I "felt" it.....it feels much like the Holy Spirit, and how wonderful it feels to be in the presence of God, but is a counterfeit spirit. I am wondering if what you are talking about here is the beginning of that deception. And make no mistake, it involves powers and principalities in high places....not wrestling with flesh and blood. The LORD is our Shepherd and keeper of our souls, if ever there was a time when we need to be relying on Him and staying close to Him and staying right with Him, it is in these perilous days. And yes, know how to give an answer!

 

[Johann]

Johann, I'm having trouble catching up with myself lately, but the lights are starting to come on with regard to this subject....thank you for kindly bringing it to our attention and to the OP for starting this thread! I think you are all very right in being alert and paying attention to this and warning against it! And Christians need to be praying and arming up and sharpening our swords to know how to give an answer to what the Jews for Judaism movement is saying in trying to capture souls and undermine the fundamentals of our faith!

Brother....a few years ago the Lord warned me of a very strong deception associated with the new temple that will be built in Jerusalem, it was as though I "felt" it.....it feels much like the Holy Spirit, and how wonderful it feels to be in the presence of God, but is a counterfeit spirit. I am wondering if what you are talking about here is the beginning of that deception. And make no mistake, it involves powers and principalities in high places....not wrestling with flesh and blood. The LORD is our Shepherd and keeper of our souls, if ever there was a time when we need to be relying on Him and staying close to Him and staying right with Him, it is in these perilous days. And yes, know how to give an answer!

You have a wonderful way of expressing yourself with words--and thank you for discerning my concern.
Stay strong in Christ Jesus
J.

 

[Lizbeth]

This brilliant intellectual argument and defense of Christianity has been brought to you by the great minds at MENSA. Sign up today to show others how smart you must be. Lacking all other evidence of intelligence, you can at least get a card for your wallet.

(You do have a membership card to show, don’t you?)

Brother, this is not a drill. War is being declared. I mean no disrespect but let's stop throwing sand at each other, and try and come together to find the answers to this very real and highly dangerous challenge to to our faith. This is not about winning arguments, but real Christian souls are being lured and taken captive by this aggressive assault on the faith.

It's not that we necessarily have to intellectually convince unbelieving religious Jews that we are right, but I think maybe this is more about arming and strengthening the body of Christ to be able to stand firm against a deception that has arisen and is gaining momentum.....the enemy's strategy to undermine and attack the fundamentals of our faith.

 

[Lizbeth]

In the exact same vein, this is John the Baptist's relation to Elijah:

Matthew 11 KJV
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Sure don't want to sidetrack this thread, but just want to put this to rest....to start with there is no reincarnation...the bible says explicitly, that "it is appointed unto men but ONCE to die and after that the judgment".

John the Baptist wasn't a reincarnation of Elijah and neither did he have to be a descendant of Elijah in order to simply have Elijah's mantle upon him, like Elisha did. John came in the spirit and power of Elijah...that same mantle of authority and power that Elijah had, given to him by God. That is all, and let us not go beyond what is written:

Luk 1:17

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

 

[Johann]

Sure don't want to sidetrack this thread, but just want to put this to rest....to start with there is no reincarnation...the bible says explicitly, that "it is appointed unto men but ONCE to die and after that the judgment".

John the Baptist wasn't a reincarnation of Elijah and neither did he have to be a descendant of Elijah in order to simply have Elijah's mantle upon him, like Elisha did. John came in the spirit and power of Elijah...that same mantle of authority and power that Elijah had, given to him by God. That is all, and let us not go beyond what is written:

Luk 1:17

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

This OP is now 14 pages long--you have caught on what is going on here sister and we have @Gaffer-- and @Mr E going strong, introducing the teachings of Singer--as if he is the only "apologist" that can "take on Christianity"--yet refusing to hear the rebuttals against Jews for Judaism, none other than Dr. Michael brown and One for Israel, and many more Messianics.
Shalom
J.

 

[Lizbeth]

Doesn't it make sense to say that the Gospel of Luke gives Mary's genealogy, since it would be nonsense to go through Joseph's line if he is not the biological father of Jesus?

It should be noted that the Gospel of Matthew sets the precedent for presenting a genealogy of Jesus that goes through Joseph. Incidentally, this genealogy goes through a line (Jehoiakim) that is disqualified for kingship. Therefore, it is not surprising that Luke's genealogical list also gives a genealogy (much different from that given by Matthew), which is supposedly that of Joseph.

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus' ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament, which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17);

(2) Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27 and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1 Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the messianic office.

© Gerald Sigal

JEWS FOR JUDAISM

And now we have a problem--see that @Mr E?
Who's right--Tovia and Scobac, or Brown and Jews for Jesus?

Shalom
In a debate, you get to know your opponent and what he believes--and you then need to counter with Scriptures, and extra-biblical sources.

Brother, I noticed someone quoted you mentioning about Joseph adopting Jesus....a legally binding situation that could affect the argument legally. (And the spirit of adoption that we received is no light thing, it is strong and binding in every respect, every bit as much as if we had somehow been natural heirs...and that to my understanding was part of the ancient Jewish culture...like kinsman redeemer, strong and binding.)

Regarding Jehoiachin....is there any way to find out if he had adopted children and heirs once he had been cursed to be childless.....could Zerubbabel have been the offspring of an adopted child of Jehoiachin's and that is why he was legitimately part of the genealogy of Jesus and considered to be Jehoiachin's grandson? (If I was following and remembering that part of the discussion aright.) Does it seem reasonable that a childless king would adopt an heir or even more children? Someone with the right skills and know-how would probably would need to go outside the bible to Jewish historical sources to find out that information.

And just to add that yes, it does make sense that Luke was giving us Mary's genealogy...for one thing he focused on Mary a lot in his account, giving a lot of details regarding Mary 's life and activity surrounding the conception and birth of Jesus.

Edit: oh, never mind. Just checked the genealogies and though this isn't my arena, it looks like Jehoiachin is the Jechonias (in the NT genealogy) that BEGET the father of Zerubbabel. So doesn't look like this was a case of adoption.