Resistance to Rome 2

Ian, Jerome and Sarah (a Jew, a Catholic and a Protestant), the three attorneys who love to hate each other, find themselves arguing Jesus' biological genealogy, only to find Jesus' ancient genealogies are not what they seem. Sarah points out that the New Testament, though appearing to be describing an adoptive relationship between Joseph and Jesus, is actually a knock off of Moses' genealogy when Moses describes his biological relationship with his own father in the same way Matthew's author describes Joseph's relationship to Jesus (compare Exodus 6:20 to Matthew 1:16). Both Moses and Jesus' genealogy explain that their fathers married their mothers and that the mothers gave birth to the child. So either both Moses' and Jesus' genealogies describe a virgin birth, or neither do. What other research will Sarah uncover to support the ancient theory that the New Testament describes Jesus as the biological son of Joseph, other than that the contradictions between Jesus' two contradictory lineages in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 were best explained by a famous orthodox Jewish sage to be describing a list of teachers and students, rather than a biological genealogy in Luke 3, but a biological lineage in Matthew 1 (compare Numbers 3:1-3 to Luke 3)? Such practice of listing your teachers - in the form of a genealogy - is commonplace in Judaism, no?