The "genealogy of Luke" does not match the genealogy of Matthew, and neither is required for the legitimacy of Yeshua. Yeshua fills the place of the coming prophet whom Israel was to listen too, as spoken by Moses. As for Luke, no one know who he actually is, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he witnessed nothing personally, which makes his testimony non confirmable. (Dt 17:6 & Mt 18:16). No one knows who wrote Acts either, but it is often assumed to be Luke, and therefore would be just more hear say, which is not legitimate testimony. As for Ananias being a "believer" who would heal Paul, per Acts, supposedly relayed through Paul, just more self witnessing, which would make it "untrue".. Keep in mind, that the Holy Spirit killed one lying Annanias, and another, the high priest, supposedly passed a death sentence on Yeshua. It was the Lord God who chose the two shepherds, Peter and Paul, to "pasture" the "flock (Gentile church) doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), it was for the purpose of a shepherd, of which the "fat" "shepherds" of Ezekiel 34:16 will be "destroyed", and replaced with one shepherd when the Lord God judges between the sheep. (Ez 34:16-24). The "deception" comes from the "beast with two horns like a lamb" (Revelation 13), in which the two lamb like leaders, Peter and Paul, help Constantine and his Roman church, deceive "those who dwell on the earth". Someone is deceived, and I am thinking it is not me.
The two genealogies, Matthew's and Luke's, work in harmony to provide an accurate explanation of how it is possible for Jesus to be both a descendant of David, and the Son of God. I can't imagine any Jew would accept a Messiah whose genealogy to David was not beyond doubt
Here's a neat summary:
The Genealogies of Jesus
R.A.Torrey
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.
2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.
3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.
4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.
5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).
6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.
7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’
