Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

You seem fixated on Solomon as the only line of Jesus. All what I had written in my last response was referring to David's line. Never in all of those verses does Solomon's name come up. Sure you can find supporting OT verses re Solomon as someone from his family being an heir, as Nathan was his brother. You dismiss any other scenario other than your own using flimsy cherry picked verses. How can you dismiss all the verses I had in my previous response to you. Just by saying so? Doesn't work that way. You must disprove them, not just deem them so. I admit that Solomon's name comes up as him being part of David's line, which leads to Jesus, but he's in the family of David & Nathan, so natuarally, he's going to be mentioned. Your, "The word inheritance does mean "possession." Are you aware that the ancient Hebrew language had only 8700 words. Most words had many contextually different meanings. Altho, the most accepted meaning is "to take possession of, inherit, dispossess. From "NAS Exhaustive Concordance." So the word possession in in there, altho with the addition of "to take ..... of" certainly gives a different context than just the word 'possession'. Also, your Genesis 31:14 .... you're kidding right? This was from a ticked off Rachel & Leah describing their father giving all their inheritance to Jacob for spending the 14 years as recompense for his 2 daughters, which they acknowledged was their father's right. They also accepted it as God's will & went with Jacob on their travels home. It seems as tho you looked up that verse & cherry picked the only one that reflected that they did not expect any inheritance. All, & I mean all the other translations have the 2 daughters asking Jacob if there was anything left of their inheritance after their father paid Jacob. Therefore, they were expecting some inheritance. Your, "Psalm 110:1 Jesus was never king, and less king over all the earth. ...." there are 2 schools of thought re this psalm. 1st being a son of David's that God was blessing as a priest/king & would win many battles etc. The 2nd is the one most quote by early Christians as they considered the significance of Jesus. Most expressed their conviction that the risen Jesus now occupies a unique place at God's right hand & will be victorious over His enemies. Your, "Using the new-testament is useless .... ' seems as tho you broke this rule of one of your mandates re this debate with your 1st sentence of your 1st round. "First let us look at Matthew's genealogy found in Matthew 1." Sorry, if you use it yourself as a source, it can be used at any point as a credible source. Your, "Mary's genealogy is useless as well. The lineage must come from the father side...." We already talked about this exact point & you are the only one asserting this requirement, not the bible. But pleas refer to previous comments. Your, "1 Chronicles 29:1 "Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen" Hmmm, you seem to leave out what David was referring to. Yes, God had chosen Solomon to be king & also to be the one to build the temple & that he was inexperienced so he was eliciting the assembly's help & materials for Solomon task. But to say that has anything to do with Solomon's lineage is misleading & off track of this debate. Your, "Ezekiel 21:26-27 That may be the messiah, ...." true, it only says it's a messiah going to come later on. What's your point? This was never an intended proof of anything. Your, "Ezra 2" excerpt was when the exiled Jews were relocating back to the Jerusalem in ruins if I'm not mistaken. What's your point here again? there were unscrupulous Jews trying to claim inheritance for stakes upon returning & this was the decision made. Geez, sounds like a valid plan to me. Your, "Also, Joseph line is cursed and thus totally utterly useless!" is once again, your opinion & not true even tho you attempt to use as proof for ancient Israel. Do you know your link led me to a provision in English law that was written in 2001AD? Why on earth did you use that to prove your point? WOW! Your, "2 Samuel 7:16 says: .... This does not prove .......Psalm 2 says" Of course it doesn't. It was my response to your quote of that same verse with totally different words according to your previous quote of the very same verse. Here's what I wrote last time to you, "I don't know where you obtained your verse of 2 Samuel 7:16, but all my sources are reflected below. You're not using the JW bible are you? "Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever." 2 Samuel 7:16" Yet now, you attempt to use it now completely out of this debate's context.So I have to ask you what's up with you?