A fave KJVO argument is that several modern versions call Joseph the father of Jesus in Luke 2. Now, the KJV does the same in Verses 41 & 48. So, is the Greek for those verses incorrect? Or, were both Luke & Mary both ignorant about Jesus' being the Son of God
NOT AT ALL!
There's a very logical reason why both Luke & Mary called Joseph His father.
Under both Jewish and Roman law of that time, a man was considered the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage, even if that man was obviously not the child's bio father. Given the dalliances among the Roman royalty, that Roman law was necessary for some men to claim the title of Caesar. And, given the ease of adoption among the Jews, that law was necessary to ensure almost every child had a father for all legal purposes.
Thus, for all human legal purposes, Joseph was considered to be Jesus father, as He was born to Mary during her & Joe's marriage.The term "stepfather" hadn't yet been coined, so "father" served the purpose. And Joseph supplied food, clothes, shelter, & training as a carpenter for Jesus as if He'd been his own bio child.
Jesus wants believers by FAITH, so He caused the fact of His conception to not be well-known to His contemporaries. Most people considered Him to simply be Joseph's first-born son. But, given the law & custom of that time/place, neither Luke nor Mary was a bit remiss in calling Joseph His father.
Yes, Jesus told Mary He had to go about His Father's business, but that was the end of the incident, as He went home with J&M & remained subject to them, even though they didn't quite understand His statement. But both J&M knew that Jesus was conceived as a human by the Holy Spirit.
But again, it was not incorrect to call Jesus the son of Joseph!
NOT AT ALL!
There's a very logical reason why both Luke & Mary called Joseph His father.
Under both Jewish and Roman law of that time, a man was considered the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage, even if that man was obviously not the child's bio father. Given the dalliances among the Roman royalty, that Roman law was necessary for some men to claim the title of Caesar. And, given the ease of adoption among the Jews, that law was necessary to ensure almost every child had a father for all legal purposes.
Thus, for all human legal purposes, Joseph was considered to be Jesus father, as He was born to Mary during her & Joe's marriage.The term "stepfather" hadn't yet been coined, so "father" served the purpose. And Joseph supplied food, clothes, shelter, & training as a carpenter for Jesus as if He'd been his own bio child.
Jesus wants believers by FAITH, so He caused the fact of His conception to not be well-known to His contemporaries. Most people considered Him to simply be Joseph's first-born son. But, given the law & custom of that time/place, neither Luke nor Mary was a bit remiss in calling Joseph His father.
Yes, Jesus told Mary He had to go about His Father's business, but that was the end of the incident, as He went home with J&M & remained subject to them, even though they didn't quite understand His statement. But both J&M knew that Jesus was conceived as a human by the Holy Spirit.
But again, it was not incorrect to call Jesus the son of Joseph!