Joseph fathered Jesus?

I don't think any Baptist believes Joseph was a sperm donor for Jesus, I believe Scripture is clear about this. But Scripture DOES say Joseph was CONSIDERED to have been His father. And, in the eyes of the earthly law under which they lived, he WAS legally His earthly father.

 

Salamander,

what important difference do you see in all this?

 

QUOTE
roby: I believe the basis for this is that some meat head KJVO such as Terry Watkins, started a stupid claim, "The NIV denies Christ's deity by calling Joseph his father in Luke 2:43". Never mind the KJV does the VERY SAME THING in Luke 2:41, 48! !

Salamander:Not really, only Luke records what Mary said to Jesus, but maybe you should have paid closer attention to what Jesus said to mary, AND Joseph? (who, Joseph, knew he was not EVER the father of Jesus)

Now, did Jesus correct Mary? Newp! He reminded them that he must be about HIS NATURAL FATHER's business. However, J&M didn't understand what he meant...not about who His Father was, but about His BUSINESS.

roby:Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Both Joseph and Mary had received visions from God, so they knew where Jesus had come from. And Luke's source of info was almost certainly either Mary, who was with the Apostles at the "first pentecost", or Jesus Himself.

O really, now? Have you somehow lweft INSPIRATION out of the equation??? Like HOLY GHOST INSPIRATION???

Then it was the HOLY SPIRIT who had Luke call Joseph His father? In that case, you have no argument, lest it be with HIM.

roby:By both Roman and Jewish law, Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly father because he was married to His mother when he was born. And he was His de-facto earthly father, or dad in modern English because he provided a home & provided for Jesus' earthly needs during His childhood. Therefore, it's not at all incorrect to call Joseph His father while He was on the earth as a human.


Since neither was Joseph His actual Father, nor was he actually more than the male parent to Jesus, to call Joseph the "earthly father" is adding confusion to WHO Jesus actually is.

No, it's agreeing with the Scriptures as written in your fave version.

If one would RIGHTLY DIVIDE the Word of Truth, that person could NEVER make the claim as you have, that Joseph was His "earthly father", of which, or whom, Jesus had none, as He emphatically stated in reproof to said Joseph and Mary in Luke 2.

No, He didn't. Luke wrote years after the fact, and nowhere does Jesus deny Joseph was His earthly father. Now, did He say,"You KNOW your hubby aint my father; GOD is!"

I do believe the Scripture corrects you, as Jesus CORRECTED Joseph and Mary.

No, Jesus didn't correct them, nor did He correct Luke, who wrote some 30 years later, AFTER HE HAD SENT THE HOLY SPIRIT, but YOUR attempt to correct your own fave BV has fallen on its snoot.

We all know parents means father and mother, while father means male parent. The KJV calls J&M Jesus' PARENTS twice, and J His father once. Try as you might, you simply cannot truthfully defend this silly and false KJVO point.

 

Joseph was Jesus’ father because Joseph functioned as the head of the family of which Jesus was a member. This was the normal practice in and before first-century Judaism that if your mother was a remarried widow, your step-father was your father in full force, and you (if you were male) were legally, morally, and ethically the heir of both your sperm donor father and your parental father. Jesus, a Jew, was fully aware of this, and don't appear to have denounced this practice. Jesus clearly recognized God as his heavenly father and Joseph as his earthly father. Scripture recognizes Joseph as his father in Luke: "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." So does Mary: "your father and I have been looking for you".

Jesus accepted Joseph as 100% his father. Likewise, just as Joseph saw Jesus as his own, and Jesus saw Joseph as his father, we must see God as our father, and accept that God sees us as his own. Just because we're just "adopted by God" doesn't mean we're any less His children, and doesn't mean He's any less our Father. Why is Joseph less Jesus' father just because he adopted him?

 

Tell me where I'm adding to scripture. Also tell me whare I'm using a modernism. Be specific.

 

Then by your own logic, none of us can be adopted by God until our fathers die?

Joseph didn't legally adopt Jesus. Joseph was in every earthly way Jesus' father. He simply wasn't the sperm donor.

Nothing in Romans 7 addresses Joseph's earthly fatherhood of Jesus. You'd best take into consideration the full meaning of Scripture as a whole, else your ideal is become a false doctrine.

 

The antiquity was very simple, under both Roman & Jewish law...if a man married a woman pregnant, but not by him, before the baby was born, he became the baby's legal father, with full costody and responsibility, same as if he were the bio father. Now, J married M before jesus was born, so guess what? JOSEPH BECAME JESUS' LEGAL EARTHLY FATHER! Just NO getting around that FACT. You may check with Hebrew University(or your local rabbi) for the Jewish law, and any of the many historical sites about Roman law.

Also under Roman law, Jesus claimed to be SON OF GOD; thus he had legal power of attorney fot GOD, who wasn't present, far as they knew. Thus, under both Roman and jewish civil law, He was perfectly right for doing something IN GOD'S NAME.

Jesus was subject to His Father in heaven, as he often said, and while a child He was subject to His earthly parents, too, as Luke 2:51 says.

Like it or not, SCRIPTURE proves Joseph was Jesus' earthly stepfather. And another antiquity was that the term "stepfather" didn't exist, so they wrote "father" instead. Actually, the antiquities SUPPORT the modernisms.

Again, try as you might, Sal, you just CANNOT justify the silly and incorrect KJVO claim that "the NIV denies Christ's deity by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43". All your attempts to manipulate the Scriptures will only make you look more silly. Just give in to what's written in your own Bible; accept it at face value because you're not gonna change it to fit your myth.

 

Sal,

again, why does it matter?

 

Salamander:I fully understand why so many here understand as well, Rob, you're simply adhering to man's law to over-ride Bible doctrine, and very confused.

I'm not the least bit confused, Sal...The scriptures are quite specific. In Luke 2:27 & 41, the Greek word is "goneus"...PARENTS. In Luke 2:48, it's "pater"...FATHER. No denying this. The KJV and every other valid version thus renders the Greek.

BTW, you're trying to turn this into a "KJVO" bashing, that's what the BV<T forum is specifically for.

No, YOU are...trying to defend one of the most stupid claims any KJVO ever made. I mean, YOU are arguing against the very words of your own KJV trying vainly to defend this stupid claim.

A man cannot have two masters, neither can a man have two fathers.

Guess you have never heard of adoption.

Jesus only ever had His Only Begetting Father.

As well as an earthly stepfather who was legally His earthly father in every way but bio.


He corrected the false ideal of Joseph AND Mary in Luke 2,

No, He didn't; He merely reminded them who His(and J&M's) actual Father is...Then, He was subject to J&M as Luke 2:51 says.


thus He also should have corrected you and Johnv, but to no avail, yall still hold to a false doctrine.

No, MY doctrine is found in SCRIPTURE, as has been pointed out to you several times, while YOURS is a total blort of guesswork as to how you wished the Scriptures would read, so you can defend that stupid false doctrine. As a child, Jesus was raised by J&M. Mary became His earthly mother, although He had ALWAYS existed, not needing any mother. No Christian denies Jesus was born as a human infant, from a virgin. Every Christian calls her His mother. She was human as Joseph. Therefore, why do you pretend it's illogical for Jesus to have had a human earthly stepfather when no Christian denies He had an earthly human mother, who actually gave physical birth to Him? The only possible reason I can think of for you to hold such a twisted view is that you're trying to defend Terry Watkins' goofiness.

 

That "emotional modern version of fathering" was in full acceptance by Jewish tradition at the tme of Jesus. You seem to gloss over that like it doesn't exist. I don't know if you're a KJVOists, but this is typical of the KJVOist mentality.

So I can't have my earthly father and my heavenly father at the same time? Scripture appears to disagree with you.

His only begotten father was God the Father. But he also had an earthly father. OTOH, our begotten fathers are earthly, while GOd is our Father as well. Everyone here seems to comprehend that. The only point of confusion here seems to be with you. Joseph was FULLY Jesus' father. God was FULLY Jesus' father. The betgetting here is God instead of Joseph, but that doesn't chage the fatherhood of both.

If it's false doctrine, then scripture would not have referred to both Mary and Joseph as "his parents". It seems the false doctrine apears to be with you when you make the implication that Joseph was not considered by Jesus to be his earthly father.

 

What a crude and unfair remark.

 

There seems to be two sides of this debate and I am agreeing with the side that you are supporting and disagree with the other side. I said that to say this, when you say things like "Joseph fathered Jesus" and "Joseph was 100% Jesus' father" and Joseph was fully Jesus' father" it is confusing. The word "fathered" when used in the context that you are using it (so and so fathered so and so) has always meant that they were the biological father whether or not they were the one which actually raised the child.. I am 54 years old and have never heard it used any other way. Joseph was not 100% fully Jesus’ father, that would mean that he is also the biological father. I have a great deal of respect for any man who takes on the responsibility of raising someone else’s biological child. It can, indeed, be as good and as strong but it is not the same.

"Joseph was in every earthly way Jesus' father" Now if you had said "every OTHER way" it would have made your point more clearly but by using "every", "fully", and "100%" it leaves no room for the real differences.

 

Thank you, Sister Lady Eagle
Amen!