Repeating names does not indicate any contradiction.

There are two sets of three names:

I Chronicles 6:7 Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub,

  8 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz,

  9 And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan,

  10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)

  11 And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub,

  12 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum,

These three names, Amariah, Ahitub & Zadok, appear twice, in the same order, in the priest genealogy.

To why can there not be a similar thing in the two genealogies given in Matthew and Luke?

In the genealogy in Matthew:

Matthew 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

  13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

But in the genealogy in Luke:

Luke 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

To say that the two names of a father and a son, being the same in both genealogies, make the two genealogies the same, cannot be correct.

First, the names of the generation, before and after the pair of names, is different in both genealogies.

Secondly, the genealogy in Matthew is through Solomon:

Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

  6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

But the genealogy in Luke is through Nathan:

Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

  32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

Nathan is another son of David with Bathsheba:

I Chronicles 3:1a Now these were the sons of David,

  5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:

So, the kingly line David of the throne, was shown in Matthew, down through Solomon, all the way to Joseph the carpenter.

The right to the throne was his by descent, but he could not sit upon the throne, because of:

Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

  29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

  30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Joseph was a descendant of Coniah, also called Jechonias:

Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

  16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

That would mean that the descendants of Jechonias could no longer sit upon the throne, including Joseph, whose father was named Jacob.

But the throne was promised to David's seed forever:

II Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

  13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

So, how could the promise made to David still be kept, after the pronouncement made upon Coniah's descendants?

Is not Mary's genealogy is the one given Luke?

Is not that genealogy back through "Joseph's father-in-law", Heli, Mary's father?

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Would that not make the genealogy in Luke, Mary's genealogy, back through David's son Nathan?

That would mean that Mary was also descended from David.

That would mean that Jesus was descended from David, fulfilling II Samuel 7:12.

But since Jesus was virgin born, Joseph was not Jesus' father.

Joseph was his stepfather, and by the right of adoption and the firstborn, the right to the throne of David was therefore Jesus'.

The pronouncement upon Coniah/Jechonias, did not apply to Jesus, because he was not Joseph's son.

But he was David's descendant through Mary, and the right to the throne was passed to him by Joseph through adoption.

Thus, the virgin birth of Jesus not only fulfilled II Samuel 7:12 of David's seed,

but it also fulfilled II Samuel 7:13, that David's throne would be established forever.