Jesus' foster father Joseph had two fathers - Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and Heli (Luke 3:23). How is this possible?

Jesus Foster Father

It's possible in two ways that I know

a - adoptive father and biological father

b - Joseph was the product of a levirate marriage (which is a very similar situation to a)

Some claim that Luke's genealogy is really the genealogy of Mary (rather than Joseph), but that contradicts what the author of Luke himself plainly teaches and also contradicts the Bible's nearly-exclusive interest in paternal ancestry.

Joseph's father was Jacob. There are two ancient explanations of how Heli (Gk. 'Eli, or 'Eliakim) is involved.

The one that makes most sense to me is that Heli/'Eli is in fact Mary's father. Notice that in the genealogy of Jacob, the relationships are "so-and-so begat so-and-so" -- a physical father. In the Heli genealogy, most English translations say "so-and-so, son of so-and-so". But the Greek does not have the word "son" at all, except for Adam being the son of God. It just says "so-and-so of so-and-so". In the patriarchal society of those days, Joseph would be "of 'Eli" by virtue of having 'Eli's daughter Mary as his wife. [Now, the ancient tradition of the church is that the parents of Mary are Joachim/Jehoiakim and Anna. But this is fascinating: Joachim is an alternate name for Eliakim, like John and Jack, or Ted and Edward, or, anciently Daniel and Belteshazzar (Daniel 1:7). To wit, "And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim," (2Kings 23:34)

The other explanation makes one or the other of Jacob or Heli the step-father of Joseph after the death of his own father.

Forgive me.

/orthodox

Genealogies of that day seldom mentioned the names of women. The account in Luke records Jesus as descending from Adam and follows the blood line to his mother Mary's father Heli.

The account in Matthew establishes Jesus' heritage as a direct descendant of King David through Solomon and the succession of Kings to the house of Joseph the adopted father of Jesus. As the eldest son, though adopted, Jesus had the full status of a natural born son, and thus could claim the throne, having missed the curse on the blood-line of Jeconiah as he wasn't connected by seed or by blood to Joseph.

No he didnt

Heli was his wife Marys father. And that was her bloodline.

When two marry, two bloodlines become one and are recorded under the paternal line. Thats why the wife and children take the name of the husband/father. Mr and Mrs John Smith, and children Ton and Ann Smith, for example

Mr = Master

Mrs = Master's (possessive)

Master and Master's John Smith

No

see the complete genealogy here

http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html

Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. Mt 1:16

Notice that he does not say Joseph became father to Jesus but that he was the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.

Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary, he says: Jesus being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli. Lu 3:23.

Actually each genealogy Matthew’s table and Luke’s shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31

Yes. This is not news. People in Judah were keen on a descendant of 'David' but people in Israel were not.

Apparently it was a botched job, since Joseph has no blood relationship to Jesus. Joseph did not contribute any of his DNA to Jesus, according to current christian theology.

The ancestral line via Heli was through Mary's family....And in those days, the family lines were always mentioned as coming through the male line...

YES, it's proof that the story is fabricated nonsense.

In the Koran there is no mention of a Joseph.