Loved it! Very informative

This kind of analysis of the scripture inspired my original leap into full atheism. Thanks for posting, I am going to follow up.

It is well known, for many years, that the Bible is just a book of memes, with no real factual credentials.

It's all bullshit, old and new "Testaments"

I'm not trying to be a dick or take away anything from your work, however trying to use this against a bible thumper would be pointless because the title king of the Jews was given in mockery not from any royal bloodline. Now what does get to the bible thumpers that you should look at is historical documentation not in the bible. Both the Romans and the Jews kept records. Both show that Roman officer named Panterra, raped a woman called Mary of the Tower. in those days "of the Tower" meant she was a prostitute. They worked in towers giving the client time to pull up his pants if someone tryed to enter. Roman documents say that Panterra was the Emporers nefew and was moved to another posting, after the local Rabi complained about non-payment. Hebrew records (aka Atiquities) Say that a young Rabi named Joseph married the girl out of pity and was excommunicated for it. They go on to say that three years later Joseph took the child who's name was Jesus to the town Panterra was stationed and spent three days there.
I could provide you with links to this information, but I get the sense your the type of person (like myself) that would prefer to do his own research and not just blindly follow or believe something just because someone said it was true, or accept anothers source that might be slanted to say what they want. Good Luck and have fun with it. Also nice job with your video.

Very good work. I don't normally even listen to videos but I had not heard of this issue before and so learned something from you today.

The only other dodge (other than the desperate one about Mary being a virgin) I can think of is that the passage in Jeremiah cutting off this lineage is irrelevant because there WERE subsequent kings listed that indeed sat upon the throne. But that puts an inerrantist into a very uncomfortable position of having to admit that either Jermiah or Matthew were mistaken.

It seems likely, as you suggest, that Matthew (or more exactly, the anonymous author of the gospel traditionally attributed to Matthew) simply wasn't familiar with Jeremiah or had limited or third-hand access to its contents -- entirely possible in that era where you didn't simply buy a personal copy of a book for chump change, or go to a library to check it out.

He looks Celtic in the picture.