Joseph fathered Jesus?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
What a crude and unfair remark.

Not at all. The remark was unfortunately accurate and restrained.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Agree. Those who attack other English translations should be held to their words - for words have meaning.

Joseph was Jesus' father. Every English translation will say that in one place or another. Nothing to do with the Virgin Birth or "sperm donor" or adoption or anything.

Simple fact. Do you think Jesus growing up referred to Mary and Joseph as "Mom and THAT man"??

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
Jesus could have appeared on the Earth without being a baby first. He didn't need Mary's body to be born in for Him to bring salvation to mankind. Jesus didn't have to be a baby. He could have bypassed the temptations and childhood.

Can’t agree with that. Jesus had to start from scratch, or seed and that of God. In the seed will come the blood. If there had been another way surely God would not have reduced himself to our level, a real live human being that would die. God had to be of we - “dirt”. His blood flowed just as ours, and when his life was over His blood (Holy blood) was made to flow. It is that living blood, and only that blood that saves. Had He not become as we, His blood could never have been let. Jesus could not come as full grown, for the only possible way to do that is to create such a one, one like Adam. Adam was not God, but created by God. Jesus was not created, for the Word was made flesh. God decided this is what they would do, and God the Word did the will of God the Father, becoming the Only Begotten Son of God, by God the Holy Spirit. God agreed the beginning would begin.

He died as a human being died. What self respecting God would do this? Only one God, and He is our God the Father, our Savior, through the faith of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by God the Holy Spirit. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” Christian faith, ituttut

 

[tenor]

Sal,

Joeseph was Jesus' father in all respects, except being the bio father.

Why don't you answer Bapmom's question about why this is important?

Is proving that Joseph is in no way, sze shape or form the father of Jesus just another "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type "theological" question for you?

PLease answer the why this important question.

Thanks, Tim

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Salamander:
The death of the biological father is the only way one can be adopted,legally, or you should know that.

To suggest Joseph legally adopted Jesus is to have God dead, NOT.

Well, actually, the premise isn't true so the conclusion is not true.

Besides, I don't think that the analogy of adoption is accurate here, this situation being so incredibly different than every other situation in history.

I was really at a loss as to the point of this thread until I read through and found it stemmed from a KJVO point of view.

 

[bapmom]

I don't know Petrel, Im KJVO, and I can't figure out what his real point is, either.

 

[Salamander]

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.

Oh? So confronting you with truth is now a "mentality"?

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

Sure you can, so can I and every other sinner born of a woman, but you're not Jesus and Jesus is neither a sinner!!! Earthly sons are sinners.

His only begotten father was God the Father.

Say WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????!!!!!!!!!! Since when was God the father begotten?? And who begat Him, Mary??????? You're in a Baptist only debate forum you catholic!!

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.

And you and many others here seem to want to argue with Jesus Himself in this situation: Jesus reproved Joseph and mary, and all others who think Joseph was ever His earthly father in Luke 2

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't know if you're a KJVOists, but this is typical of the KJVOist mentality.

What a crude and unfair remark. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for making an intelligent and corretc observation. The term "KJVO" is become a derogatory name here in BB.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Sure you can, so can I and every other sinner born of a woman, but you're not Jesus and Jesus is neither a sinner!!! Earthly sons are sinners.

Jesus was the earthly son of Mary, as well as the Holy son of God.

I have read modern versions all my life and have never once thought Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
What a crude and unfair remark.

Not at all. The remark was unfortunately accurate and restrained. </font>[/QUOTE]Many here seem to doubt that and are justified in their suspicion as well. Let observation of many of your posts and "restrained" is a misnomer and laughable at the same time.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Agree. Those who attack other English translations should be held to their words - for words have meaning.

Joseph was Jesus' father. Every English translation will say that in one place or another. Nothing to do with the Virgin Birth or "sperm donor" or adoption or anything.

Simple fact. Do you think Jesus growing up referred to Mary and Joseph as "Mom and THAT man"??

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).

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by natters:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
Sure you can, so can I and every other sinner born of a woman, but you're not Jesus and Jesus is neither a sinner!!! Earthly sons are sinners.

Jesus was the earthly son of Mary, as well as the Holy son of God.

I have read modern versions all my life and have never once thought Joseph was Jesus' biological father. </font>[/QUOTE]And no one ver asked you what you "thought" either

 

[natters]

HuH?

 

[Salamander]

Is it not important for all to understand that Jesus is the Son of God? ( to answer anyone and everyone) Adoption is only to orphans, that becoming an orphan by desertion or death. God never died, and never deserted Jesus, but now God did turn His back on Jesus when He became sin for us.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by natters:
HuH?

Still guessing?

 

[natters]

Ya, trying to guess what your comment meant.

 

[bapmom]

Salamander,

you are assuming that the people talking to you here have some sort of false doctrine going on.....that they believe that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, or that Joseph is being considered as somehow superior to Jesus while Jesus was growing up.

The KJVo objection to other versions changing such passages is because it represents a trend in those other versions. Its not very fair to come into a Baptist forum and claim that the people HERE are adhering to a false doctrine of Joseph being the father to Jesus in the biological sense.

Other than that, I don't know of any other KJVos who would object to the idea that Joseph acted as Jesus' earthly male parent.

Why don't you clarify a bit, and tell us what role you believe Joseph served in Jesus' life?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Many here seem to doubt that and are justified in their suspicion as well.

I wonder if it's that same invisible "many" who agree with pov here.

Let observation of many of your posts and "restrained" is a misnomer and laughable at the same time.

You're downplaying Joseph's role as Jesus' father, and you're calling my posts laughable?? That's laughable in itself. Moreso when your view is compared to scripture itself, which, even if adhering scrictly to the KJV, referrs to Joseph and Mary as Jesus' parents, without hesitation, reservation, or refutation.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Salamander:
And no one ver asked you what you "thought" either

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll volunteer that I don't think this response showed restraint.

I think this is another one of those statements best answered by the response, "Except we don't think that, so that can't be true." The proposition seems to be that referring to Joseph as Jesus' adoptive father/earthly father negates his deity and impeccable nature. As natters posted above, I don't think that any of us who think of Joseph as Jesus' father think that that means he was not God and the Son of God and that he was not sinless.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Adoption is only to orphans, that becoming an orphan by desertion or death.

Once again not true and once again a false analogy. A person may give a child up for adoption (quite different from desertion in my pov) or have his or her custodial rights terminated by law. And the analogy does not exactly hold because of the singular nature of this event.