Bible

[thrifty]

I find that

for the most part, that I can trust certain commentaries. Not that I agree with them all the time. :) I do and will look at what certain "theologians" have to say on what I question. For example.

Mt.1:16 NAS
Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

1:16 by whom. The word is feminine singular, indicating clearly that Jesus was born of Mary only and not of Mary and Joseph. It is one of the strongest evidences for Jesus' virgin birth.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie

Luke 3:23 NAS
When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.

3:23
Luke affirms the Virgin Birth by the phrase being, as was supposed. son of Eli. Joseph was Jacob's son by birth (Matt. 1:16) and Eli's son by marriage. This is apparently the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary. See note on Matt. 1:
Charles Caldwell Ryrie

Mt. 1:16 NIV
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

1:16
Matthew does not say that Joseph was the father of Jesus but only that he was the husband of Mary and that Jesus was born of her. In this genealogy Matthew shows that, although Jesus is not the physical son of Joseph, he is the legal son and therefore a descendant of David.
NIV Study Bible

Luke 3:23 NIV
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

3:23-38 There are several differences between Luke's genealogy and Matthew's (1:2-16). Matthew begins with Abraham (the father of the Jewish people), while Luke traces the line in the reverse order and goes back to Adam, showing Jesus' relationship to the whole human race (see note on 2:31). From Abraham to David, the genealogies, of Matthew and Luke are almost the same, but from David on they are different. Some scholars suggest that this is because Matthew traces the legal descent of the house of David using only heirs to the throne, while Luke traces the complete line of Joseph to David. A more likely explanation, however, is that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father) while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus' blood relative.) Although tracing a genealogy through the mother's side was unusual, so was the virgin birth. Luke's explanation here that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (v23) brings to mind his explicit virgin birth statement (1:34-35) and suggests the importance of the role of Mary in Jesus' genealogy.
NIV Study Bible

3:23 NIV
about thirty years old. Luke, a historian, relates the beginning of Jesus' public ministry both to world history (see vv.1-2) and to the rest of Jesus' life. Thirty was the age when a Levite undertook his service (NU 4:47) and when a man was considered mature, so it was thought. Luke had already affirmed the virgin birth (1:34-35), and here makes clear again that Joseph was not Jesus' physical father.
NIV Study Bible

Now I have a few more study Bibles but you get the drift.

And make me not quote someone elses interpretation. :)