Salamander
New Member
"Firstborn" not earthborn: nothing about Jesus and His birth or life is earthly. Hint: He's God the Son, not the "son of Joseph"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Joseph fathered Jesus?
- Thread starter Salamander
- Start date
Salamander
New Member
Proclaiming the Word of God always invites contention: from the devil and the carnal.Originally posted by Nomad:
No offense to anyone in particular, but this has to be the weirdest thread ever (although there are several worthy contenders).
Your double-standards is ineed amusing. You hold to definition as supporting your claim, but when the same standard applied refutes your claim, all of a sudden it's "selective and inferior".
Did you go to the KJVO school of double standardism, or is it something that comes naturally?
You can't get around it. By any and all standards applied and duscussed, your claims falls flat on its face, being fully and completely refuted to all success. The more you post on this topic, the more ridiculous, empty, and baseless your claims sound. You might want to quit while you're behind.
Salamander
New Member
Are you suggesting that He isn't any longer God or isn't any longer Jesus? Maybe an investigation of the word "manifest" would do you good as well as a study on His Ressurected Body?
WHAT??????????????? You'd better go READ the Bible, Rob, and quit reading all those commentaries!!!
And who was it that said, " I have seen the Salvation of the Lord"? in Luke?
Salamander
New Member
Your double-standards is ineed amusing. You hold to definition as supporting your claim, but when the same standard applied refutes your claim, all of a sudden it's "selective and inferior".
Did you go to the KJVO school of double standardism, or is it something that comes naturally?
You can't get around it. By any and all standards applied and duscussed, your claims falls flat on its face, being fully and completely refuted to all success. The more you post on this topic, the more ridiculous, empty, and baseless your claims sound. You might want to quit while you're behind. </font>[/QUOTE]LOL, the Truth has it's way of antagonizing those adhering to falsehoods and modern belief systems.
To concur witrh your idiom, one has to re-define the English language, much as you and others have tried.
What really scares me is that so many professing Christians comply with it, unknowingly, I might add, but all the same.
The English is always definable, no matter how "archaic" the modernist attempts to call it, some of us still have a working knowledge of English and NOT a limited and liberal mindset; conservatively speaking.
The problem is for you, that I could talk circles around you, but I have withstood myself to that implemetable vocale.
F'ATHER, n. [L. pater. The primary sense is obvious.]
1. He who begets a child; in L. genitor or generator.
The father of a fool hath no joy. Prov. 17.
2. The first ancestor; the progenitor of a race or family. Adam was the father of the human race. Abraham was the father of the Israelites.
3. The appellation of an old man, and a term of respect.
The king of Israel said to Elisha, my father shall I smite them? 2Kings 6.
The servants of Naaman call him father. Elderly men are called fathers; as the fathers of a town or city. In the church, men venerable for age, learning and piety are called fathers, or reverend fathers.
4. The grandfather or more remote ancestor. Nebuchadnezzar is called the father of Belshazzar, though he was his grandfather. Dan. 5.
In this case, falsehood is that Joseph should not be referred to as Jesus' father.
It is your idiom that requires redefinition of the English language, which is what you did with the word "parent" where scripture plainly and clearly referrs to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' parents.
Salamander
New Member
OK, John, you're "right" again, BUT!!!, if by your estimation of the Word of God as you and Rob "see" it, is authoritive, then Jesus doess not only have Joseph as His earthly father, but then Jesus is also, by your estimation of the Word of God, a "wine-bibber, a glutonous man" as the Pharisees accused.
The danger of what you and others have said is that every statement found in the Bible is accurate and "right", though accurate, not only are there statements given that are not according to Truth, but they are there for our edification: for us to understand the Truth, not run with tidbits of info that lead to FALSE doctrines.
To answer Rob, if as you say that Jesus wasn't known to be the Son of God previous to Luke 2:49, then will you PLEEEEEEEEASE "explain" the previous statements of one Simeon, and another Anna, in the very same Book of Luke????
Seems by Divine Revelation Simeon knew Who Jesus is, Anna knew Who Jesus is, PRIOR>
I believe your anti-KJVO bias has you altered and in a mental state preventing true comprehension of the Word of God, thus a dangerous dictohmy, an instilling of ignorance.
If I maintain an "idiom" as you described, then compare me more with Homer, but then what you ascribe to is therefore become idiotic.
The danger of what you and others have said is that every statement found in the Bible is accurate and "right", though accurate, not only are there statements given that are not according to Truth, but they are there for our edification: for us to understand the Truth, not run with tidbits of info that lead to FALSE doctrines.
To answer Rob, if as you say that Jesus wasn't known to be the Son of God previous to Luke 2:49, then will you PLEEEEEEEEASE "explain" the previous statements of one Simeon, and another Anna, in the very same Book of Luke????
Seems by Divine Revelation Simeon knew Who Jesus is, Anna knew Who Jesus is, PRIOR>
I believe your anti-KJVO bias has you altered and in a mental state preventing true comprehension of the Word of God, thus a dangerous dictohmy, an instilling of ignorance.
If I maintain an "idiom" as you described, then compare me more with Homer, but then what you ascribe to is therefore become idiotic.
Salamander
New Member
Bump! I see no answer, so I decided to bump this back to the top.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The Pharisees call him such, but Scriptural narrative does not. Scriptural narrative does, however, refer to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents.
I know that statement cannot be applied to me here, since I used only the KJV as the reference text.
Salamander
New Member
Oh, really? So your applied reasoning fluctuates on your command?
And your anti-KJVO bias is well acclaimed in the BV$T forum as well.
Seems you'd rather take the words of Joseph, mary, and Luke over Christ's? Let's see how you command your lamentable reason this time.
And your anti-KJVO bias is well acclaimed in the BV$T forum as well.
Seems you'd rather take the words of Joseph, mary, and Luke over Christ's? Let's see how you command your lamentable reason this time.
If you read this entire thread, you'll see that my reasoning has been consistent. In fact, I applied your reasoning here to refute your contention.
I am absolutely anti-KJVO. KJVOism is an affront to the KJV, and all who love the KJV need to take a firm stand againt KJVOism. I'd be guilty of false doctrine if I did otherwise.
You will never, however, find a single thread in which I'm ant-KJV. Not one.
Since Christ does not contradict Joseph, Mary, or Luke, that is a nonissue.
Since you have in 6 pages failed to support your claim, and since your own application of reasoning refutes your claim, and since you have committed instances of double-standards on this topic, there is nothing unresonable, lamentable, or for that matter, unscriptural about my stance.Let's see how you command your lamentable reason this time.
quote(roby):The conception of Jesus as a human baby was miraculous, but there's nothing in Scripture suggesting His gestation and birth were anything more than ordinary.
Oh, and how many "other" virgin conceptions, gestations, and births do you know of?
We're only discussing ONE. Any other is not in this issue.
quote:The Scriptures say otherwise. However, in those days, the terms "stepfather" or "surrogate father" were not in existence. The Greek is "pater"; you simply cannot get away from that unless you say the Greek manuscript is wrong.
First you define "pater" as father, then you re-define "pater" as step-father?
Yerp! That's the fact. The terms I mentioned didn't exist in Jesus' earthly time.
quote:Sal, you're a LOT more intelligent than to keep denying the facts. Joseph acted toward Jesus as any ordinary father/stepfather acts toward his son/stepson. YOU KNOW THAT! That's why I say you're actually using a back door to try to defend Terry Watkins or some other goofy KJVO author's great big false claim.
You bring my intelligence into the converstaion? [ You must have left yours out! You equate "father" with step-father, you equate "son" with step-son. You're CONFUSED!!!
AM I?
It's YOU who stands against what's written in your fave Bible version. Luke thrice calls J&M Jesus' PARENTS, while quoting Mary as calling Joseph His father. Mary knew exactly where Jesus came from. As Joseph was her husband & the man who served as male earthly parent of Jesus, she was correct in calling him Jesus' father.
You also bring in this Terry Watkins into "play" when I have only the idea that he is some one you disagree with, not that I even know who you're actually talking about: a tangent is what that is called.He is the KJVO author who first published the goofy "NIV denies Christ's deity by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43" idea in "Dial-A-Goof" ministry.
Then you bring the anti- KJB slurr" KJVO" as you call it into the mix
Actually, it's anti-KJVO MYTH. And YOU are the cat who started all this. By saying it's anti-KJV, you're absolutely wrong as usual. I have quoted from the KJV to prove you wrong, but since you're still arguing this goofiness, you're leaning more & more to showing us you don't believe your own fave BV.
I understand you'll never comprehend the Truth with your modern mindset; it is an impossibilty.
I understood the truth long before you started advocating a LIE.
Oh, and how many "other" virgin conceptions, gestations, and births do you know of?
We're only discussing ONE. Any other is not in this issue.
quote:The Scriptures say otherwise. However, in those days, the terms "stepfather" or "surrogate father" were not in existence. The Greek is "pater"; you simply cannot get away from that unless you say the Greek manuscript is wrong.
First you define "pater" as father, then you re-define "pater" as step-father?
Yerp! That's the fact. The terms I mentioned didn't exist in Jesus' earthly time.
quote:Sal, you're a LOT more intelligent than to keep denying the facts. Joseph acted toward Jesus as any ordinary father/stepfather acts toward his son/stepson. YOU KNOW THAT! That's why I say you're actually using a back door to try to defend Terry Watkins or some other goofy KJVO author's great big false claim.
You bring my intelligence into the converstaion? [ You must have left yours out! You equate "father" with step-father, you equate "son" with step-son. You're CONFUSED!!!
AM I?
It's YOU who stands against what's written in your fave Bible version. Luke thrice calls J&M Jesus' PARENTS, while quoting Mary as calling Joseph His father. Mary knew exactly where Jesus came from. As Joseph was her husband & the man who served as male earthly parent of Jesus, she was correct in calling him Jesus' father.
You also bring in this Terry Watkins into "play" when I have only the idea that he is some one you disagree with, not that I even know who you're actually talking about: a tangent is what that is called.He is the KJVO author who first published the goofy "NIV denies Christ's deity by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43" idea in "Dial-A-Goof" ministry.
Then you bring the anti- KJB slurr" KJVO" as you call it into the mix
Actually, it's anti-KJVO MYTH. And YOU are the cat who started all this. By saying it's anti-KJV, you're absolutely wrong as usual. I have quoted from the KJV to prove you wrong, but since you're still arguing this goofiness, you're leaning more & more to showing us you don't believe your own fave BV.
I understand you'll never comprehend the Truth with your modern mindset; it is an impossibilty.
I understood the truth long before you started advocating a LIE.
Your selective double standard is abundantly clear. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
fa·ther (fäthr) n.
1 A man who begets or raises or nurtures a child.
(also as a transitive verb)
v. fa·thered, fa·ther·ing, fa·thers
v. tr.
1 To procreate (offspring) as the male parent.
2 To act or serve as a father to (a child).
v. intr.
To act or serve as a father.
Consider your claim fully refuted. </font>[/QUOTE]Not by a selective and inferior definition, not! </font>[/QUOTE]Sal, you're completely off-track! We MUST use selective definition! If we say, George Washington is father of our country", does that make all of us USA citizens descendants of Washington? Or because I say "is", does that mean I believe GW is still alive on earth?
And I wonder how many stepchildren in how many nations for how many generations have called a step-parent "Mom" or "Dad" in their own language?
"Firstborn" not earthborn: nothing about Jesus and His birth or life is earthly. Hint: He's God the Son, not the "son of Joseph" </font>[/QUOTE]Sal, please tell us what was NOT ordinary about Jesus' gestation and birth after His Divine conception. And I do NOT mean the fact that He was born in a stable, nor the visitors He had, nor the angels' Annunciation...I mean medically speaking.
As this is an American-run board, you are free to continue in ignorance if you wish. You simply cannot prove a thing you say; in fact you're going against Scripture as found in your own fave Bible version. Was He not carnally born on earth, in Bethlehem, as Scripture both prophesied and stated after the fact? Did He not live as a man, except that he didn't sin? Did He not die, and was He not resurrected, proving He DID die? Was He not God who was manifested in the flesh for a season?
Salamander
New Member
Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Seems Jesus disagrees with you, and the next verse just may fit your idiom:
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Jesus established the Truth; Joseph was never His father,Mary only chosen among women to bare God's Son and not really His "mother" either: Hint- God doesn't have a "mother". Of course if you and Rob want to continue believing such heresy, be my guest, but I DID try to show you how to rightly divide the Word of Truth concerning the subject.
Salamander
New Member
I agree, for there is none other birth by a virgin, and neither is there anything earthly about that which is of heavenly origin. You err.
You introduced an obviously incorrect terminology by applying modern reason to antiquated definition; even you would object by your own term/ archaic.
Nerp! If Mary knew so much, then why did she think Jesus was in the caravan? Then why did they have to travel back three days to find Jesus in His father's House amazing the scholars, scholar? Everytime Jesus was present with any axiom, he refuted error with the Truth, so you are then left with the alternative: accept the words of Joseph and Mary, as reported by Luke, or accpet the words of Jesus. Rightly divide it, Rob, Jesus shows you different from waht you keep stating as error.
Maybe you should put your accusation of my "LIE" in the public forum, friend, I have not lied. If you do not prove my "LIE" then you are the one lying. Just as you are the one propigating a "LIE" by implicating me as "KJVO" which is proven countless times as a derogatory term in the BV&T forum. I have no "fave" version, I have the Bible, God as my witness, just as Jesus WITNESSED before all those present when He refuted Joseph and Mary as they would interupt His Father's business.
Salamander
New Member
Your selective double standard is abundantly clear. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
fa·ther (fäthr) n.
1 A man who begets or raises or nurtures a child.
(also as a transitive verb)
v. fa·thered, fa·ther·ing, fa·thers
v. tr.
1 To procreate (offspring) as the male parent.
2 To act or serve as a father to (a child).
v. intr.
To act or serve as a father.
Consider your claim fully refuted. </font>[/QUOTE]Not by a selective and inferior definition, not! </font>[/QUOTE]Sal, you're completely off-track! We MUST use selective definition! If we say, George Washington is father of our country", does that make all of us USA citizens descendants of Washington? Or because I say "is", does that mean I believe GW is still alive on earth?
And I wonder how many stepchildren in how many nations for how many generations have called a step-parent "Mom" or "Dad" in their own language? </font>[/QUOTE]You espouse utter confusion, any 4th grade American student knows Washington as the "father of our country" in the aspect he led the US Militia against the British and crossed the Potomac to defeat Cornwallis and later became the First President of these United States, but it doesn't amaze me that you don't.
Salamander
New Member
OK, all births EXCEPT!!! this ONE are of earthly origin, being Adam was not birthed, but created. Nothing about Jesus' birth was earthly: it happened on earth, but is NOT earthly, but PRE-EMPTIVELY H E A V E N L Y!!!
Salamander said:
Actually no. "son of Joseph" only has the Jewsih conotation that Jesus was subject to Joseph,( as a son: one who studied under another such as learned in the carpentry business as his "father in the trade"), but never does Scripture actually say "Joseph was the father of Jesus", except where the tense of the Greek clearly says in English (as was supposed).
And on that note, Salamander hoists his own argument on its own petard.
If there is some sense in which Jesus was the son of Joseph, then in that same sense Joseph was the father of Jesus. To say otherwise is to twist the very definitions of the words beyond all recognition.
Not that Salamander will agree, of course. He will just continue to fancy-dance around the obvious. Such is the life of someone who is so enslaved to the tradition of men that he has to adopt a quasi-Romanist doctrine of the virginity of Mary in order to "defend" the particular wording of a mere English translation of the Bible.
Actually no. "son of Joseph" only has the Jewsih conotation that Jesus was subject to Joseph,( as a son: one who studied under another such as learned in the carpentry business as his "father in the trade"), but never does Scripture actually say "Joseph was the father of Jesus", except where the tense of the Greek clearly says in English (as was supposed).
And on that note, Salamander hoists his own argument on its own petard.
If there is some sense in which Jesus was the son of Joseph, then in that same sense Joseph was the father of Jesus. To say otherwise is to twist the very definitions of the words beyond all recognition.
Not that Salamander will agree, of course. He will just continue to fancy-dance around the obvious. Such is the life of someone who is so enslaved to the tradition of men that he has to adopt a quasi-Romanist doctrine of the virginity of Mary in order to "defend" the particular wording of a mere English translation of the Bible.